Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Agricultural Machinery

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the surplus in 1979 of the value of agricultural machinery exports over imports; and what is the position at the latest available date.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher): The surplus in 1979 was £524 million and in 1982 was £298 million. Those figures include agricultural tractors as well as agricultural machinery.

Mr. Farr: As there have been many imports of machinery since 1970, when formerly that machinery was exported from Britain, and as the import trend is increasing, which is disturbing, will ray hon. Friend consider whether the progress of the state-backed research associations can be redirected and whether additional finance is needed?

Mr. Butcher: Our weapon is support for the innovation head of account. Thus far, about £2·3 million under support for innovation has gone into the agricultural machinery industry. It is a demand-led scheme. We should be pleased to entertain further projects in that context, provided that they are viable and meaningful. I take my hon. Friend's point and look forward to further applications from the companies that are under such pressure at the moment.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: I support what the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) has said. Is my hon. Friend the Minister aware that whenever I go to an agricultural show and look at the machinery section all I can find are machines that are made outside this country? I am beginning to wonder how much ability we have left to manufacture agricultural machinery. It is extraordinary that, though we have the best agriculture industry in the world, we are buying so much machinery from overseas.

Mr. Butcher: We are still the largest exporter of tractors in the world. However, I think that my hon. Friend is concerned about agricultural machinery in general. He will know that our industry looks enviously at the product certification schemes in Europe, particularly in Denmark, Holland and Germany. We are examining those schemes. I assure my hon. Friend that the industry's case is not going by default and that we are concerned to see that our companies fight back, preferably using the innovation route.

Mr. Williams: Does the Minister not recognise that the figures he has given represent an appalling decline over the past few years? Are not the already poor prospects for the section of the industry, like those for all industry, worse this week than they were last week? The Confederation of British Industry made that forecast as a result of the Government's announcement unnecessarily to increase gas and electricity prices. Is it not about time that the Government stopped vindictively beating industry about the head with their doctrinal deflationary clubs?

Mr. Butcher: I cannot accept the central assertion in the right hon. Gentleman's question. The Government are concerned to see that our existing and established manufacturers fight back in international markets. We believe that the best way to do so is by giving them a lower rate of inflation and allowing our recovery to emerge, as it is, gradually. We believe that the industry has a good future. We are still exporting £298 million worth more equipment than we import.

Girobank

Mr. Allan Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he has for the future of the Girobank.

The Minister for Information Technology (Mr. Kenneth Baker): The Post Office board is responsible for the development of the Girobank. But it is for the Girobank management and work force to ensure the bank's success by continuing to improve productivity and competitiveness against other financial institutions.

Mr. Roberts: Will the Minister congratulate both the management and work force of the Girobank on having continued to develop successfully and profitably? Will he give an assurance that he will resist any pressures from banking or commercial interests to curtail the activities of the Girobank or to privatise it?

Mr. Baker: I echo the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The management and work force of the Girobank have done a good job. There are no immediate plans to privatise the Girobank. However, as the House will know, an important part of the Government's policy is to reduce the size and scope of the public sector, and options for privatising each nationalised industry, as a whole or in part, are kept under review. The Girobank is not excluded from that review.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Why should an organisation such as the Girobank be considered for privatisation when it is fully in competition with other sectors of the banking industry? What is the justification for even considering privatisation?

Mr. Baker: The reverse of that question is why should the Girobank be in the public sector? Its privatisation would be a complicated matter, because we cannot consider it separately from the counter network, a large proportion of which is already in private hands through the sub-post offices.

Mr. Ewing: Is the Minister aware that his statement that the Girobank is under continuing review for possible privatisation will cause widespread uncertainty among those who bank with it and work for it? Will he seriously reconsider what he has said and accept that under no circumstances should the Government privatise the Girobank?

Mr. Baker: I have said what I have said. I wholly refute the suggestion that there is any uncertainty. It is fallacious for Opposition Members to believe that through privatisation jobs are at risk. That is not necessarily the case, as we are discussing during the Committee stage of the Telecommunications Bill.

Regional Policy

Mr. Fallon: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has completed his review of regional policy.

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has yet completed his review of the arrangements for regional aid.

Mr. Straw: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when his review of regional industrial aid will be completed.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Norman Tebbit): No, but I intend to publish shortly a White Paper which will invite views from interested parties on some of the issues in a process of consultation that will be part of our review.

Mr. Fallon: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the White Paper will tackle such structural problems of the north-east as centralised wage bargaining, lopsided public investment and a shortage of entrepreneurs at all levels?

Mr. Tebbit: I hope my hon. Friend does not think that it is quite that bad in the north-east. Certainly there are a number of problems, and some of them will be dealt with in the White Paper. That is one reason why we shall be seeking views on some aspects, as well as stating our policy on others.

Mr. Fisher: Will the Secretary of State ensure that, as its major priority, the White Paper deals with the creation of new and lasting jobs in the regions generally, but especially in north Staffordshire and my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent, Central? Is he aware that 50 per cent. of the jobs in the pottery industry have disappeared during the past four years? Does he agree that unless there is new regional aid, as a matter of urgency, the industrial base of north Staffordshire will disappear?

Mr. Tebbit: It is fortunate that there are good signs of better times in the pottery industry. A number of companies have been making a strong come-back, and some have taken on additional labour. Regional policy is about the creation of jobs, but quite often the expenditure that has been incurred has not necessarily resulted in the creation of many new jobs.

Mr. Straw: Is the Secretary of State aware that in the north west and other regions there is the gravest suspicion that the review is nothing more than a smokescreen for further cuts in total aid to the hard-pressed regions? If that is not true, will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to assure us that the White Paper and the review will not be used as an excuse for further cuts in regional aid, which has already been cut savagely by the Government?

Mr. Tebbit: When looking at these issues, the first step must be to decide what instruments should be used, how expensive they may be and how they can be tailored to

give the best possible results for the least possible expenditure. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to incur public expenditure simply for the sake of it —perhaps I am not sure.

Mr. Hal Miller: In the review of regional policy, will my right hon. Friend pay special attention to the need, not simply to create new jobs, but to preserve existing jobs in industries that need to be modernised and restructured, perhaps with the loss of some employment, to ensure their competitive future?

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is right. That is why, of late, we have been giving more help to schemes, especially in the engineering and manufacturing industries, for the introduction of new products, new techniques and new machinery. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has been especially active in that respect in the west midlands. We must beware that regional policy does not simply shuffle problems, at great expense, from one part of the country to another.

Mr. Grylls: Will my right hon. Friend always remember that regional aid takes money through taxation from firms in one area and gives it to those in another? Will he ensure that the basis of the White Paper is value for money for the taxpayer?

Mr. Tebbit: I can reassure my hon. Friend on the matter that he has raised. The justification for regional policy is primarily on social grounds — trying to do something to assist regions in the most difficulty, especially those with high unemployment.

Mr. Park: What are the implications of the review for the west midlands? Will the Secretary of State do anything to stop the continuing contraction, especially in the machine tool industry?

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman had better await the White Paper before he makes his judgment. Opinions are divided on whether the west midlands would be better off by being included in an assisted area, or better off without what is often considered to be unfair competition from a nearby assisted area.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the strong message from the Conservative Benches is that assisted areas blight their neighbouring areas?

Mr. Tebbit: I understand my hon. Friend's point. There is a case, especially on social grounds, for those in the more fortunate parts of the country to assist those in the less fortunate parts, but we should not pretend that that necessarily gives a great boost to the economy.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind the needs of the rural parts when he draws up the White Paper? Will he consider establishing a new regional status—a rural development area?

Mr. Tebbit: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware of the help given to rural areas, not least through such organisations as COSIRA and through assisted area status for certain rural areas. I hope he does not forget the greatest of all aid to rural areas — the common agricultural policy. He may reflect upon its cost-effectiveness, but it amounts to a great deal of money.

Mr. Shore: I greet the Secretary of State on his first appearance at Question Time in his new and important


role. If he is as positive and creative in his new Department as he was negative and destructive in his previous role, British industry and trade may have reason to greet him and look forward to his tenure of office.
Is not the central problem facing anyone considering regional policy the fact that during the past four years the whole of Britain has become a development area? As this is one of the most controversial of all subjects—which areas should benefit and whether such benefits should be for employment or capital purposes—would it not be more sensible to come to the House with a Green Paper rather than a White Paper, so that we and the Minister can enjoy sufficient flexibility to make our points without the right hon. Gentleman being over-committed before hearing what we have to say?

Mr. Tebbit: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his characteristically generous welcome, which I entirely reciprocate. I am sure that from time to time we shall have our differences, and I am sure also that they will be honestly debated. I look forward to hearing him put his side of the case—whether it is the one in which he believes, or the one that is his party's policy.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I shall remain as destructive of bad practice, and as negative about those who have impaired our industrial economy, as I ever was.
On the right hon. Gentleman's point about a Green Paper, I have already said that although we intend to publish a White Paper, there will be a great deal of room for discussion. There will be some green edges to the paper. That is the right way in which to proceed.

Manufactured Goods

Mr. Gould: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his preferred index of the competitivenes of British manufactured goods.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: The competitiveness of British manufactured goods has many aspects, including both cost and price competitiveness and the important non-price factors in competitiveness such as design, reliability, delivery performance. No one measure is adequate.

Mr. Gould: Why does the Minister not give a precise answer to the question? Is it because he knows that any index that he cares to look at would show a substantial loss of competitiveness since 1979 and that the index that has most commonly been relied on shows a decline of no less than 33 per cent? Does not this dreadful figure show that those bits of British industry that have survived the past four years are not leaner and fitter, but smaller and much weaker?

Mr. Baker: There are many aspects of competitiveness, and the main one, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, is wage inflation. A large part of the competitiveness of British goods was lost through high inflation. If we have high wage inflation when there is low wage inflation among our competitors, that inevitably leads to British goods being relatively more costly, and thus to fewer sales overseas.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Will the Minister consider the effect of competitiveness where a monopoly is held by an aircraft supplier? Will he consider giving aid to the British airframe and aero-engine industry, particularly to allow the A320 to become competitively effective?

Mr. Baker: That is a different question.

Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that all this discussion shows that it would be unwise for the Government to attempt to manipulate the sterling exchange rate to hold it up?

Mr. Baker: Yes, Sir.

Manufacturing Industry (Output)

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the most recent figure for output in manufacturing industry; and how this compares with the figure for the same month in 1979.

Mr. Tebbit: In the third quarter of 1983 the index of production for the manufacturing industries was 94.9. This compares with 108.1 for the same quarter of 1979.

Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend not find this reduction in the output of manufacturing industry alarming? What steps do the Government propose to take to raise demand for the output of manufacturing industry to the level of 1979?

Mr. Tebbit: I am sure that, apart from anything else, my hon. Friend will be pleased to notice that the index figure that I have given is 3 per cent. higher than that given for the last quarter of 1982, when he last raised this question. If my hon. Friend thinks that there is a lack of demand in the economy, he must be failing to do his own shopping.

Mr. James Hamilton: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that one of the major reasons for the big difference in the percentages is the number of companies in the hands of receivers? This is happening every day of every week. Is he aware of the letter that I have sent to him about one of the major companies in my constituency, IBH (Holdings) Terex (Scotland), which is in the hands of the receiver, Why is that so, and why are the Government not assisting it?

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman would probably take the view that the Government should not assist every company that falls into the hands of the receiver. A large number of companies do so because they are badly managed, have a bad work force, or are engaged in making a product for which there is no longer a demand. As to the detail of the question and the company to which the hon. Gentleman refers——

Mr. Hamilton: The right hon. Gentleman ought to know.

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman says that I ought to know. There are a number of things that the hon. Gentleman should know, but he shows few signs of knowing any of them.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that manufacturing industry in the midlands is at long last beginning to improve? Does he accept that as long as any review of regional policy does something to help the west midlands, for a change, and does not dissipate its industry to other regions, recovery will continue?

Mr. Tebbit: I find myself in complete agreement with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Shore: Manufacturing output, as the Secretary of State says, is three points up on the trough of recession two


and a half years ago, but it is also 17 points below the level that it was when he and colleagues took office, which is the largest fall ever sustained by either British industry or the industry of any other country. The House would like to know to what factors the Secretary of State attributes this massive and unprecedented decline in the performance of British industry. What is the main reason, and how can the Government assist in reversing the trend?

Mr. Tebbit: There is little doubt that the right hon. Gentleman understands the causes as well as most of us, even if he is not willing to admit it.

Mr. Straw: High interest rates.

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman will recollect that interest rates are lower now than they have been for five and a half years. He also knows that inflation is lower, and that a lower exchange rate not only puts up prices of exports but reduces the prices of imported raw materials and food required to sustain our economy.
To return to the question of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore)—avoiding the interruptions from behind him—the principal causes are that our industry was uncompetitive in the——

Mr. Gould: It is more so now.

Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney has many assistants. I wish that he would keep them in order.
Faced with the difficulties of a world recession, it was our industry, not that of our competitors, which showed that it was weak and went to the wall in many cases.

Iraq

Mr. Waller: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the level of trade with Iraq.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Paul Channon): In 1982 United Kingdom exports to Iraq totalled £875 million and imports from Iraq £80 million. In the first nine months of this year trade has been at about half those levels due to the influence of the Gulf war on Iraq's economy, but there are now welcome signs of more opportunities for British firms in Iraq.

Mr. Waller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the significance of short-term events, the record in recent years demonstrates that Iraq represents one of the best markets for our exporters? What results has he achieved through the representations that he made on behalf of British manufacturers when he visited Iraq?

Mr. Channon: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. When the Iran-Iraq war ends, as we hope it soon will, the prospects for Iraq are extremely good, as are the prospects for British firms there. There were some difficulties over payments, but I am glad to tell the House that these are being worked out and in the future there are good prospects for exports to that country.

Balance of Trade

Mr. Leighton: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give the current balance of trade in manufactures for the past 12 months with the rest of the European Community.

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Norman Lamont): Since the second quarter of 1979 there has been a total deficit on trade in manufactures with the other countries of the European Community of £15·1 billion and a surplus with the rest of the world of £28·7 billion. In the year ending September 1983 there was a deficit on manufacturing trade with the Community of £6·4 billion.

Mr. Leighton: In view of the first speech of the new director of the National Development Council, in which he said that every £35,000 worth of manufactured imports represented one lost job in this country, can the Minister estimate how much unemployment has been caused in Britain by the appalling deficit that he has just announced?

Mr. Lamont: It is wrong of the hon. Gentleman to concentrate on one section of the current account. We must take into account exports of services and oil as well, and we have a considerable surplus there. Furthermore, we have had a large current account surplus—one of the largest in the world—in the last two years. The hon. Gentleman must not look at one sector alone.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is it not traditional and in no way alarming for the United Kingdom to run a balance of payments deficit with manufacturing countries? Is it not also the case that in our trade with the EC our exports are better covered by imports than they are with other large manufacturing blocs, the United States and Japan?

Mr. Lamont: It is true that in terms of visible trade in about only six of the last 37 years have we been in surplus. The trend that the hon. Member for Newham, North East (Mr. Leighton) has identified applies not just to EC countries but to our trade with many advanced industrialised countries. Deficits in one area are the counterpart of surpluses elsewhere, and we have been a strong surplus area. Labour Members should remember that they have changed their policy; they used to be against the EC, but now we are told that their policy is different. We should like to know what it is. Is it a fundamental renegotiation or just a fundamental fudge?

Mr. Janner: Does the Minister appreciate that areas such as Leicestershire, which, alas, have no oil, have depended on the manufacturing sector to provide jobs for their people, and that the collapse of industry and employment in such areas as my city have resulted directly from Government policy? What, if anything, is he prepared to do about it?

Mr. Lamont: I cannot see, if the hon. and learned Gentleman is implying withdrawal from the EC, how that would be the answer to his problems. The EC has been the fastest growing area for our exports—37 per cent. of our manufacturing exports go to the EC. Unemployment in the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency is well below the average for the EC as a whole.

Mr. Batiste: Does my hon. Friend accept that were Britain to withdraw from the Common Market that would result in the most catastrophic loss of jobs in manufacturing industries, particularly in my region of Yorkshire and Humberside?

Mr. Lamont: I agree with my hon. Friend. An extremely important aspect is inward investment. Much of the inward investment that is made by multinational and


American companies in this country is important for jobs, but it would not take place unless those investors had access to a guaranteed market of 270 million people.

Mr. Shore: Is the Minister aware how seriously our trade balance with the EC in manufactured goods has deteriorated? We are told that the overall total since we joined is minus £15 billion and that last year the minus total was over £6 billion. Is not the deficit this year running at an annual rate of getting on for £8 billion? To what does the Minister attribute this massive decline in Britain's manufacturing exports and balance of trade with the EC countries?

Mr. Lamont: It is inevitable, as we have growth in our exports both of oil and services, that one of two things will happen: either there will be increased growth in imports of manufactures or there will be an increase in the export of capital. That follows as a simple matter of arithmetic. As for the trend in visible trade—and we should not concentrate on one aspect of the matter—in the second quarter of this year we had a surplus of £650 million and in the third quarter we had a surplus of £400 million.

Oriental Countries (Trading Malpractices)

Sir David Price: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with his fellow Ministers in the European Community about joint action to curb dumping and other trading malpractices by various Oriental countries.

Mr. Channon: There are procedures in the Community for protecting its industries from injury by dumped or subsidised imports, whether from the Orient or elsewhere. If my hon. Friend has a specific point, I should be glad to investigate it. The anti-dumping unit in my Department is pleased to help in any case that arises.

Sir David Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that South Korea takes part in what I would call dumping practices in respect of steel and shipbuilding when it undercuts even the Japanese below cost? Is he further aware that it would be much better if protective and defensive action against the predatory habits of the Koreans were taken on a European basis rather than on a United Kingdom basis alone?

Mr. Channon: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. The GAIT provisions have not so far been invoked in relation to shipbuilding, but I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would give me details of exactly what he has in mind in relation to shipbuilding and it jury to United Kingdom shipbuilders, and I shall be ready to look into the matter in relation to the GATT provisions.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Surely after all this time there is no need for the Minister to keep asking for individual examples. Is he aware that when I visit firms in my constituency—be they in clothing or woollen textiles—they are all full of the story of dumping from the Orient, as the right hon. Gentleman puts it, and from eastern Europe?

Mr. Channon: There are, of course, cases of dumping, as the right hon. Gentleman says. They are investigated and the anti-dumping unit in the Department is only too anxious to assist people, and has frequently done so, to prepare their cases for the Community. Where there is a good case, remedies can be taken. If the right hon.

Gentleman has a specific case we shall look into it straight away. [Interruption.] There is no point in Opposition Members laughing about it. Every case must be carefully prepared, and we are only too anxious to help.

Mr. Stanbrook: Are not the numbers of those employed in the anti-dumping unit of the Commission pathetically inadequate to deal with this business? Does not the anti-dumping unit at my right hon. Friend's Department, which has no powers in the matter, employ more people than the Commission, which is supposed to serve 10 countries?

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend is right to say that it would be helpful if there were more people in the antidumping unit in the Community, but that is not within my power; it is a decision for the Community. It is important that British industry should get the best help it can from my Department in dealing with cases of dumping, where they arise. That I am determined to achieve, and that is what is happening now.

Mr. Ashdown: Is the Minister aware that the current tariff on computers and computer components operates in favour of dumping in that completed computers imported into this country are charged at 15 per cent. whereas components for United Kingdom assembly are charged at only 5 per cent.? Is he further aware that an NEDC draft report recently recommended that the position be amended? Will he take the matter up with his colleagues in Brussels so as to reconstruct the tariff system to operate in favour of United Kingdom manufacturers?

Mr. Channon: I know the point that the hon. Gentleman has in mind. He has a question on that very point later, and perhaps he will await the answer to that.

Mr. Ewing: Will the Minister stop hiding behind a request for specific cases when there have been countless cases on which the Community took no action? If the Community refuses to protect our steel and shipbuilding industries, as indicated by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that the Government will have the courage to act on their behalf and protect them from these practices?

Mr. Channon: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the steel industry is not protected already. While I do not think that I have received a specific case from him, I assure him that I am continually receiving cases. We pursue them, frequently with satisfactory results. There is no point in having generalised accusations. We need specific action on specific cases, and those we are only too anxious to take up.

Regional Development Grants

Mr. Bruce: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is yet in a position to say when he will publish the Government White Paper on regional development grants.

Mr. Hicks: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is now in a position to state when he hopes to announce his proposals following his review of regional policy; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Tebbit: On 2 November, in answer to a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller), I announced my intention


shortly to publish a White Paper on future regional industrial policy. This will set out the Government's proposals for the framework of a new structure for regional industrial incentives.

Mr. Bruce: I thank the Minister for that reply, but I am sorry that he is not able to give a more precise date for this keenly awaited White Paper, as there is a great deal of concern about the implications of it. Will he confirm that such a review will be used as an opportunity not to cut regional aid but to redeploy it more effectively to create jobs? Is he aware that under the present system many large capital projects that produce relatively few jobs receive disproportionately large capital grants, while projects that would create many jobs are often denied assistance?

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman refers to the balance between the subsidisation of capital projects and of those that are more job-intensive. He makes the point well, and it is one that we have taken into account. As for the total of aid, we should look at the problems with which we must deal and the instruments that we devise and then decide how much money the economy can afford to devote to those instruments and policies against all the other demands on the public purse.

Mr. Hicks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the level of economic activity in certain peripheral and less well endowed areas of the United Kingdom is to be maintained, with the possibility of a reduction in the level of unemployment, regional policies must continue? In that context, is it not a fact that regional aids serve a function of job maintenance as well as of job creation?

Mr. Tebbit: If I did not think that regional policy had a role to play in maintaining levels of employment in the country's more disadvantaged parts, I would not even be talking about publishing a White Paper dealing with the way in which regional policy will be conducted. There is a whole raft of policies to help to maintain jobs. Among the most important of those policies are the battle against inflation and the battle to keep down interest rates. That implies that we must be very careful to maintain a tight hold on public expenditure.

Mr. Martin: Is the Secretary of State aware that the shipyards that specialise in building small fishing craft and ferries have declined to such an extent in Scotland that only two are left? One of them is in Campbelltown and the other is McCrindles in Ardrossan. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that those shipyards complain that Norwegian companies are receiving excellent subsidies, which mean that the Scottish companies are unable to win contracts despite their competitive tenders? Some local authorities are even giving contracts to Norwegian companies in preference to British-based companies.

Mr. Tebbit: In this wicked world it is not uncommon for a number of countries to subsidise their shipbuilding industries. We do that as well.

Mr. Henderson: Will more emphasis be placed in the review on the importance of the role which service industry can play in creating jobs? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that, when assistance is given from public funds, more attention is paid to the quality of the proposed scheme and the number of jobs created, rather than merely to the geographical location of the firm?

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend has raised two important points. I hope he will find that they are dealt with in an interesting way in the White Paper.

Mr. Ashley: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that north Staffordshire badly needs regional assistance, as it has one of the fastest rates of increase in unemployment in the country? It would be wiser to give assistance now, when recovery is possible, than to wait until the area has been completely devastated.

Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman will have gathered that the White Paper is to be published shortly. It will deal both with the measures that we shall use and with their coverage over the United Kingdom. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will make his observations on both of those points when the White Paper is published.

Mr. Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Conservative Members believe that regional aid under all Governments has distorted management decisions, has led to investment where it was not needed, and has thereby slowed down efficiency? If he wants to help British industry, should he not abolish all regional aid and persuade our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to use the equivalent amount to cut tax on industry?

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is correct to point out that regional policy involves an economic cost as well as benefits. We must ask ourselves whether, in the short run at any rate, my hon. Friend's recipe would not impose on those who live in the less advantaged areas additional burdens which could become intolerable.

Mr. Shore: I am glad that the Secretary of State resisted that siren voice from his Back Benches. Do the scope and terms of reference of the review of assisted area policy extend to the specific Department of the Environment schemes for aiding the inner cities?

Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman will find that the White Paper makes some reference to urban policy and, above all, to the need for it to move in harmony with other regional policies.

Colombia and Venezuela

Mr. Shersby: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the Minister of Trade's recent visit to Colombia and Venezuela.

Mr. Channon: I visited Colombia and Venzuela to further our bilateral trade relations, to support British companies in those markets, and to open a conference of commercial officers from our embassies in Latin America and the Caribbean, with the purpose of increasing United Kingdom trade in the area.

Mr. Shersby: Does my right hon. Friend agree that trade with the South American continent is of the utmost importance to Britain? Is he aware that trade with that continent is inadequate? What is his policy for improving it?

Mr. Channon: I agree with all my hon. Friend's points. Our trade with South America has fallen far too much, and is now less than 2 per cent. We need to take energetic action to increase it. We shall now concentrate


on selective exports and on trying to make a real effort to increase our share of the Latin-American market. In the past decade or so Britain has neglected it far too much.

Mr. Dalyell: If the Minister was sincere about that answer, as I am sure he was, will he have a word with our ever so recent ambassador in Washington, Sir Nicholas Henderson, and ask him not to write in The Economist about the Organisation of American States in particular, and Latin Americans in general, in terms that are quite so insulting and offensive?

Mr. Channon: I have a suspicion that that is another question. However, when I have to pick between the hon. Gentleman and Sir Nicholas Henderson it is, indeed, a difficult task to know which to trust.

Late——

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not say that Sir Nicholas Henderson was untrustworthy. He may have written an extraordinary article in The Economist referring to intelligence reports which cannot be questioned in the House of Commons, and he may have made ample use of unpublished Foreign Office telegrams. I suppose that Sir Nicholas Henderson is entitled to defend himself and certain sections of the Foreign Office. The Minister for Trade can put his point of view in the article, which, incidentally, is a veiled but devastating attack upon the Prime Minister.
I said that Sir Nicholas Henderson had insulted the Organisation of American States and what he called in the article "the Latinos". That is different from saying that he is untrustworthy. Can we have an explanation of precisely what the right hon. Gentleman meant when he replied to a relevant question by saying that Sir Nicholas Henderson and I were untrustworthy?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that the whole House will accept that the hon. Gentleman is certainly not untrustworthy. I am sure that had the Minister intended to say that he was, he would withdraw that remark.

Several Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Channon: Mr. Speaker, I believe that when the House reads Hansard it will find that I did not say that, but if that was the impression that I gave, it is not the one that I would wish to convey and I naturally withdraw any such implication.

Electric Traction Units (Exports)

Mr. Flannery: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the value of United Kingdom exports of electric traction units in each of the past three years.

Mr. Butcher: Exports of direct current electric traction motors amounted to £4 million in 1980, £5·8 million in 1981 and £8·6 million in 1982. These figures do not include indirect exports or complete propulsion units, which are not separately recorded.

Mr. Flannery: Is the Minister aware that the most important producer of traction units in Britain, and one of the most internationally famous, is the firm of GEC traction, Sheffield? Is he further aware that that firm is now in great difficulty, having completed its last international order, strangely enough, for the underground railway in Seoul? Will he make a serious attempt to talk

to the Secretary of State for Transport and the British Railways Board, and encourage them to electrify the railway between St. Pancras and Sheffield, part of which has already been electrified? That would save that very important international firm.

Mr. Butcher: I can fully appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern, because he has mentioned one of the two companies that specialise in that type of product. However, as he rightly surmises, the major question is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. Indeed, I understand that the hon. Gentleman has already raised this issue with him. Of course, the prospects of any company depend on the balance between its efforts in the home and export markets. Therefore, any early effort in the home market will, in turn, help that company to continue to export.

Mr. Churchill: Is it not a tribute to the skill of the management and the efficiency of the labour force at the Trafford Park division of GEC, in particular, that it has won so many contracts in the far east and South African markets and has been so successful? Will the Government continue to give every possible assistance to ensure that we can land those important foreign contracts?

Mr. Butcher: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade will continue to give special help where required for those who wish to export to those markets. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) in congratulating GEC in that regard. In the generality, locomotive and self-propelled rolling-stock exports amounted to £17·1 million in 1981 and £32·2 million in 1982. That is, indeed, a first-class record.

Film Industry

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future of the British film industry.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I intend to make a statement of the Government's intentions as soon as possible.

Mr. Dormand: I assume that the Minister is referring to the review of the film industry. Indeed, I see him nodding in agreement. However, will he give an assurance that there will be full consultation on this issue, particularly with the unions involved? Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the great worry that has been expressed about the possible winding-up of the National Film Corporation? There are strong rumours that that is to happen. Will the Minister tell us whether he is considering the institution of the Eady-type levy on films that are being shown on television?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman is asking me to anticipate my statement to the House. I assure him that I have consulted hundreds of people about the film industry. I included in those consultations the unions represented by Mr. Alan Sapper. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall be dealing specifically with the points that he raised about the levy and the National Film Corporation. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the British film industry is enjoying a revival. Last year, British films and television programmes added about £163 million to our exports. It has been a success story for us around the world. I want to encourage the revival that is under way.

Mr. Bermingham: Will the Minister give an assurance that, when making projections about cable television and


the importation of films on video cassette, some steps will be taken to protect the British film and feature industry from those cheap imports, which could harm a developing and profitable export industry?

Mr. Baker: We made it clear in the cable White Paper that the cable authority, in issuing the cable licences, and the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, when allocating the first 12 licences—that will be done by the end of this month—will take into account the amount of British content that the various consortia are prepared to make available for cable television.

Public Companies (Political Donations)

Mr. John Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to amend the law relating to donations to political parties from public companies.

Mr. Tebbit: I have no plans to do so.

Mr. Evans: Is the Secretary of State prepared to acknowledge that if the Tory Cabinet in general—and especially the right hon. Gentleman—is to avoid the charge of hypocrisy, the Government should withdraw part III of the Trade Union Bill and introduce legislation to ensure that donations to the Tory party from big business are subject to a ballot of shareholders.

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman is labouring under a misapprehension. The Bill that was recently introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and the talks that my right hon. Friend is having with the Trades Union Congress deal not so much with how parties are financed or who should finance them, but with how the rights of individuals, which are set out in the 1913 Act, are implemented in honour. I am not aware of any widespread dissatisfaction among shareholders at the manner in which their rights are upheld by the Companies Acts and allied legislation.

Mr. Leigh: Will my right hon. Friend advise Opposition Members that if they want to set the financial affairs of the Labour party in order they should stop bleating about the democratic right of shareholders to make political donations. They should instead take a leaf out of the Conservative party's book, whereby 90 per cent. of our funds are raised by the hard work and individual efforts of ordinary members.

Mr. Tebbit: It would be wrong for me to offer such good advice to the Opposition. It might be taken by them, and they would be a much stronger party in opposition to us.

Mr. Crowther: Is the right hon. Gentleman overlooking the fact that the Secretary of State for Employment is intending to require trade unions to hold a ballot of their members on whether they should have a political fund? Why, therefore, does the Secretary of State not introduce legislation to require companies to hold a ballot of shareholders before they give the funds from which contributions are made to parties?

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman persists in seeing companies as mirror images of trade unions. They are not. I warn him that if the law governing the conduct of trade

unions were as tightly drawn and had penalties as severe as that governing the conduct of companies, a good many trade union leaders would be in gaol.

Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if shareholders feel aggrieved about a decision to make a political donation to the Conservative party, that decision can always be overturned at an annual general meeting? If there were a similar procedure in the trade union movement for people who want to opt out of supporting the Labour party, that movement would not be in its present scandalous position.

Mr. Tebbit: Although I understand the passion and conviction with which my hon. Friend puts that point, he falls into the trap of assuming that trade unions and companies are mirror images of each other. We do not legislate in the same way for them. The trade unions would be the first to protest if we imposed on them the legal sanctions that are imposed on companies.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: If it is wrong for Ministers to make decisions about companies in which they are shareholders or from which they receive remuneration, in relation to references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, or, in the case of the Stock Exchange, a decision whether a case is considered under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, is it not equally wrong that companies that have made political donations to the Conservative party should be judged by those Ministers?

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman asked a convoluted question. I thought for a moment that he was about to suggest that those who benefit, as the hon. Gentleman did in the past, from trade union funds should not make any judgment on trade unions.

Mr. Shore: The Secretary of State knows very well that the Conservative party receives well over £2 million a year from company donations. Therefore, there is clearly a relationship between, and a symmetry of arrangements made for, the trade unions when they contribute to the Labour party and for companies when they make contributions to the Conservative party. Is the Secretary of State not aware that it is 16 years since the first disclosure requirement was placed upon companies when making such donations? Does the right hon. Gentleman not believe, since his colleagues are now busily preparing amendments to the trade union legislation, that we ought to reconsider the matter, make it possible for individual shareholders to opt out of any arrangement and for companies to make a formal resolution to establish a political fund under supervision? If the right hon. Gentleman did that he might add to his reputation for evenhandedness and fairness.

Mr. Tebbit: I was unaware of any need to add to my reputation in that regard. The purpose of the Bill that is being put forward by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is to ensure that those rights that were given to trade unionists under the 1913 Act are fully carried through. In recent years, they have not been. This is a response to the demands not of Conservative Central Office, but of trade unionists. I am unaware of any similar demand for protection by shareholders.

Tourist Boards

Mr. Gale: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is satisfied with the present structure and operation of the tourist boards; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Norman Lamont: The present structure and operation of the tourist boards have been examined in detail in the Department's review of tourism policy. I hope to announce the conclusions of that review shortly.

Mr. Gale: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. In his announcement, will he pay attention to the administration of section 14? Will he seek to ensure that money is made available primarily for the purposes for which it was originally intended and that there is not a top-up for what ought to be taken care of by private finance?

Mr. Lamont: I agree with my hon. Friend. He will understand that I cannot anticipate an announcement that may be made, but I emphasise that I hope it will be made shortly.

Mr. Wallace: Does the Minister recognise that, while support for tourism locally is welcome, it would be helpful also if there were central Government assistance in easing rating provisions for small hotels and guest:louses and also low interest loans to help many small hotels meet fire regulations and other such statutory provisions?

Mr. Lamont: I note what the hon. Gentleman said. We discuss issues of that type all the time with the Department of the Environment. It is my function as a Minister within the Department of Trade and Industry to take up those questions with other Departments. I cannot anticipate the outcome of the review.

Miss Fookes: When may we expect the outcome of this review, because without it there will be difficulties for tourist boards that wish to plan ahead?

Mr. Lamont: I expect that it will be shortly.

Mr. Hicks: Is my hon. Friend aware that, amongst those dealing with the tourist industry, there is a widely held view that additional resources should be made available at the two sharp ends — attracting overseas visitors and providing amenities and services when those visitors are here — rather than the unnecessarily cumbersome and duplicating structure of boards that we have?

Mr. Lamont: I note what my hon. Friend says. He gave evidence during the review and I assure him that his remarks have been carefully considered. Again, I cannot anticipate the announcement.

Monopolies and Mergers

Mr. Wrigglesworth: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his policy towards monopolies and mergers.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: As my right hon. Friend explained yesterday in answer to my hon. Friend the member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), our policy towards monopolies and mergers is governed by a balance between reliance on the market as arbiter of company size and structure, the need for competition to promote the direct interest of the consumer, and any other matters which may affect the public interest.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: If the Government believe in competition, why are they pursuing a privatisation policy which will simply convert public monopolies into private ones? Will the Minister pursue a policy, particularly in relation to BT and British Airways, of deregulation and further liberalisation which will give true competition?

Mr. Fletcher: We are pursuing a vigorous competition policy in the private and public sectors by privatisation and by references under section 11 of the Competition Act.

Redundancies (Trafford Park)

Mr. Tony Lloyd: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
GEC's announcement yesterday of a redundancy programme which will cause the loss of 370 jobs at GEC in Trafford park.
The matter is specific, because yesterday's announcement will directly destroy jobs and training opportunities in the Stretford area, a constituency which already suffers unemployment massively in excess of the national average. The announcement is a tragedy not just for Stretford but for the whole Manchester area.
The matter is important because Trafford park in general and GEC in particular have suffered enormous job losses over the years, particularly since the Government came to power. We have seen the loss of skills of a work force whose skills in the past made Trafford park the nation's engine room. The matter is important also because we see clearly that the United Kingdom turbine manufacturing industry is threatened by the lack of orders on its books, caused partly by domestic policy and partly by a reduction in world demand.
The matter should have urgent consideration so that the Government, the Central Electricity Generating Board and the turbine manufacturing industry can together study the long-term future of turbine supply to safeguard the domestic manufacturing industry. The matter should also receive urgent consideration so that the need to maintain and prevent further erosion of the skill base in the Manchester area is recognised, because the area has invested in the skills of its work force and it is entitled to see those skills utilised.
Mr. Speaker, I submit that this matter is specific, important and urgent. I request that you rule accordingly.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
GEC's announcement yesterday of a redundancy programme which will cause the loss of 370 jobs at GEC in Trafford park.
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, and I well understand the concern that he feels for his constituents. He knows that the only decision I have to reach is whether this matter should have precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow.
I regret that I do not consider the matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised as appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10; therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Prevention of Delays of Trials

Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helen's, South): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish the maximum period spent in custody pending trial; and for connected purposes.
It is unfortunate that one has to raise this subject, but in any one year a considerable number of people suffer grave hardship because of the current system of remanding people in custody.
During the last 12 months for which we have figures, of about 48,000 people who were remanded in custody, 16,000 later received non-custodial sentences and 2,000 were acquitted. That effectively means that under our system of bail about 30 per cent. of the people involved were not granted bail in cases where they were not going to receive custodial sentences.
It seems to me and many people with whom I have discussed this matter that remands in custody have clogged the prison system. Recent figures available for Manchester and Leeds prisons show that about 25 per cent. of the people currently remanded in custody awaiting trial have been there more than 110 days.
In a recent example in Wales, three men were remanded in custody for approximately nine months before acquittal. They have no right to compensation for the iniquities and the conditions that they suffered during their remand. At a more lowly level of criminal offence, in Leeds the other day a defendant had been in prison for about 142 days on a burglary charge to which he was always going to plead guilty. He received a two-year term of probation. One must ask what is happening to the bail system and remands in custody.
I believe that the Bail Act 1977 has been largely ignored in a series of cases. The Nottingham and the Reading justices' decisions, and the periodic pronouncements of various judges, particularly one or two on the northern and north-eastern circuit who have warned magistrates by saying such things as, "People who are on bail commit offences," have created an atmosphere in which vast numbers of people who need not be locked up before court hearings are being remanded in custody. That places an unnecessary additional strain on the prison system.
My Bill, which is in no way revolutionary, seeks merely to bring English law into line with Scottish law. The Scots have a sensible law. If I have leave to introduce the Bill, England could, and should, benefit from a provision whereby remands in custody are limited to a maximum of 110 days.
I wish to allay one or two fears. In no way is the Bill designed to let the guilty go free. On the contrary, it is designed to enable the guilty to stand trial more quickly and to receive the punishment that they justly deserve more quickly. The Bill is not designed to shift the clog or blockage in the court systems but is a spur—I speak as a solicitor who has practised for many years in the criminal courts—to lawyers to get a move on in dealing with their cases, to listing officers in the Crown courts to list more quickly and to the judiciary to be more efficient in the use of time.
I appreciate that all those who operate in the courts seek to do their best, but we must be realistic. Considering the


amount of time spent messing about—I speak bluntly—in the preparation of criminal trials, all involved in the legal system have much to ask themselves.
To those who question the intention of the Bill on the ground that Scotland has a procurator fiscal system, the answer is simple—most prosecutions in England and Wales are largely controlled by prosecuting solicitors employed by either the shire or metropolitan counties, and in London by solicitors employed by Scotland Yard. In our system, lawyers control the cases. There is no excuse in 1984 for people to be remanded in custody for more than 110 days before their trial. Old trials are trials with stale evidence. The best way to justice is with fresh evidence, and the best way to justice with fresh evidence is to have speedy trials.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Mr. Gerald Kaufman, Mr. Denis Howell, Mr. Alfred Dubs, Mr. Robin Corbett, Miss Janet Fookes, Mr. Charles Irving, Mr. David Penhaligon, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Ms. Harriet Harman, Mr. Stuart Bell and Mr. Paddy Ashdown.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Let them all out.

PREVENTION OF DELAYS OF TRIALS

Mr. Gerald Bermingham accordingly presented a Bill to establish the maximum period spent in custody pending trial; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 16 December and to be printed. [Bill 56.]

Opposition Day

[3RD ALLOTTED DAY] [FIRST PART]

Improvement Grants (Cuts)

Mr. Speaker: Before we move to the important Opposition day debate on the effect on householders of Government improvement grant cuts, I should tell the House that I have a long list of hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate. Would those making opening and winding-up speeches on the Front Benches set a good example to those who are to follow by making short contributions?

Mr. Eric S. Heifer: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the proposals of Her Majesty's Government to cut improvement grants from 90 per cent to 75 per cent. and severely limit their availability, so disadvantaging individual householders, worsening the effects of previous cuts in housing capital expnditure, housing subsidies and inner city and urban aid, and thereby increasing unemployment in the building and associated industries, retarding home modernisation and impeding recovery in the construction trades and the national economy.
The motion is primarily concerned with the Government's decision to cut home improvements grants from 90 per cent. to 75 per cent., and its effect on revitalising our housing stock and employment within the construction industry and in dashing the hopes of many thousands of home owners whom the Government are supposed to cherish.
The motion goes wider than cuts to improvement grants. The issues involved are interconnected, and add up to a serious blow to householders and to the poorest sections of the community — those who live in old houses which are desperately in need of repair or renovation.
The cuts in improvement and repair grants inevitably penalise the poorest owner-occupiers. Women, who are over-represented among the disadvantaged, must bear the brunt of the cuts. Women spend far more time in and around the home than their male partners. Even if they work, a high proportion of them work part time. Those women bear the main responsibility for the home and must cope with the miserable effects of bad housing. The Government claim that they have the needs of the family most at heart. If that is so, they should try to provide more support for the poorest families in the community and switch more and not fewer resources to improvements and repair than is suggested at present.
The motion deals with the rehabilitation of inner cities, the impending recovery in the construction industry, which has suffered tremendously since the Government came to office, and the effects of the cuts and Government housing policy on the national economy.
I have taken note of what you said, Mr. Speaker; before your remarks, I decided that I would not make a long speech, because the debate is scheduled to last only three hours. I have sat on the Back Benches through many hours of debate, and I have always resented long speeches made by either Opposition or Government Front-Bench spokesmen.
I must disappoint those of my hon. Friends who have asked me to include in my speech the statistics of Swansea or other places. If they wish to raise such matters, they must try to catch Mr. Speaker's eye.
The Government's proposal to cut the grant from 90 per cent. to 75 per cent. has caused widespread dismay and much anger. Those who protest include employers' organisations in the building and construction industry, trade unions, local authorities, housing associations and many others. Those householders who may find that their hoped-for grant will not be forthcoming and the workers who looked forward to better days in the building and construction industry will be especially angry.
The Government originally agreed to increase the grant for one reason only—a general election was imminent and this was a general election gimmick. Now that the Conservative party has won the election, it assumes that it can treat local authorities, builders and workers with disdain. There is no doubt that the increased improvements grants have been a great boon to the industry. I accept the Government's figures that spending on such grants increased from £90 million in 1978–79 to £430 million last year. According to what the Minister said on 20 October, the expenditure this year will be about £650 million. That was the only bright spot on the gloomy scene of the Government's policies. When I left the Chamber after the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the proposals in his Budget speech, the press asked me what I thought of the Budget, and I said that the only benefit was the increase in grant from 75 per cent. to 90 per cent. That bright spot has now disappeared.
Reactions to the Government's decision have been sharp and clear. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities said that the ending of the renovation grant arrangements will have the following effects. Many people on local authority grant waiting lists will be disappointed. It is estimated that about 500,000 people are in the grants system. I should have wished to give the figures for individual areas, such as Liverpool and Swansea, but as I said earlier, I shall not. However, they are available and I assure the House that they add up to several hundred thousand peoole still waiting for grants. In many areas local authorities will not consider new grant applications until the circumstances change and they know what the housing investment programme will be. It has been clearly shown in letters that I have seen, and in statements by the Government, that the HIP allocations for next year are likely to be 20 per cent. lower than they are this year. If that is so, that, together with the cuts in the grants for home improvement, means that there is a bleak future for British housing.
The Association of Metropolitan Authorities stated:
As the next major announcement on housing capital expenditure will be the 1985–86 HIP then it looks like the freeze on grants introduced by many authorities is set to continue for up to 18 months".
The AMA housing chairman, Mr. John Donnelly, is right to describe the Government's move as "wholly irresponsible". The National Federation of Building Trades Employers described the grants scheme as
probably one of the most successful initiatives of the last Conservative Government.
It also stated that the cut
contradicts entirely the Prime Minister's call last year for increased housing investment".

Sir Peter Trench, chairman of the House-building Council, was reported in the journal Building on 4 November as having told the City of Westminster Chamber of Commerce:
The Government's reduction of housing improvement grants in 1984 is a reversal of policy we could live to regret".
Mr. Bruce Chivers, president of the National Federation of Building Trades Employers — which is hardly renowned for its support of Labour policies — was reported in the November edition of National Builder as saying:
It was monstrous that the Government should be seeking to impose further cuts upon an industry which had already taken far more than its fair share".
The president of the Royal Institute of British Architects commented in the National Builder on reports that the Government are contemplating axing £500 million from local authorities' capital budgets for housing, and cutting inner city aid. Mr. Michael Manser said:
This would be permanently damaging to a construction industry which remains in a very debilitated condition … It would be bound to stifle general economic recovery … Such a decision would show culpable disregard of the evidence about accelerating deterioration in the condition of the nation's housing stock.
He also made the important point that
the Government would also be turning its back on some of the severest inner city problems, and withdrawing from its earlier commitments.
Lest some of my hon. Friends believe that I have been biased in quoting only the employers' organisations, the housebuilders and architects' representatives, I shall quote what the trade union leaders in the industry said. Mr. George Henderson, the building groups secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, said:
These latest cuts will fall on an industry which has already taken a disproportionate share of the burden … The construction industry is the engine for any recovery. It is high time this Government was investing, not cutting investment.
Mr. Hugh D'Arcy the chairman of my union, the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians said:
One of the most effective ways to boost the economy is to invest in the construction industry, which in turn creates demand for the products of manufacturing industry. Looked at in this light the Government's cuts are economic madness".
On radio this morning the Minister of State tried to excuse Government policy by attacking the Labour Government's policies and the Labour party's present housing policies. The hon. Gentleman must know that I have not always supported previous Government's policies, but, although I have criticised some of the Labour Government's policies, I must set the record straight. When the Conservative Government came to office, in 1979–80, 75 per cent. of Government cuts fell on housing. Between 1979–80 and 1981–82 HIP grants were halved, and it has been said that housing grants are to be slashed by at least £500 million.
Cuts in housing expenditure could not have come at a worse time, because 4·3 million dwellings need repairs costing at least £2,500. Of those, 1 million need repairs costing more than £7,000, and 1,116,000 houses are unfit for habitation. Those figures were obtained from the English house condition survey 1981. It shows that 340,000 owner-occupied houses are without one or more basic amenities, such as an inside lavatory or a fitted bath; and 200,000 private rented dwellings and 142,000 vacant dwellings are in a similar position. The AMA estimates that there is a shortage of 433,000 dwellings nationally,


and that the figure is increasing. Each year 40,000 dwellings deteriorate into being unfit to live in, and another 100,000 deteriorate into serious disrepair.
At present 400,000 construction workers are on the dole queue, and the National Federation of Building Trades Employers estimates that the cuts will throw another 30,000 workers out of a job.

Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): The hon. Gentleman reminded us briefly of the Labour Government's record on repair and improvement grants. Will he confirm that in 1978–79, the last year of the Labour Government, £90 million was spent on home improvements; that last year, 1982–83, £430 million— four times as much—was spent on home improvements; and that this year £650 million will be committed to home repairs?

Mr. Haffer: The hon. Member must be deaf. I said that a little while ago. I said that that was the one bright spot in the Government's policies of deepening gloom. I accept that that has happened, but why are the Government now cutting improvement grants from 90 per cent. to 75 per cent. while also cutting the HIP allocation? That means that local authorities will not have enough money even to provide the 75 per cent. grants.
The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) must also know that unemployment in the construction industry has reached its highest ever level during the Government's term of office. If the hon. Gentleman does not know that, he should talk to some of my constituents who are construction workers. He should also talk to some of my constituents who live in miserable housing that desperately needs repair. They hoped to modernise their homes but will no longer be able to do so because of the cut in grants. That is what is happening and it is why we protest at what the Government are doing.
I see from the Government amendment that they want to offset criticisms of their policy by referring to their so-called home ownership policy and their so-called tenants' charter. The latter has been discussed in Committee this week. I am sure that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have been involved in those discussions will be anxious to deal with the charter today. The Government did not accept the Opposition's sensible proposals. Their tenants' charter is phoney.
The Government's policy of cutting home improvement grants will hit those who own their own homes. They constantly tell us how much they favour people owning their own homes, but many such people are struggling to pay their substantial mortgages. They have bought property that is not as fit and good as it should be. It requires renovation and repair. The grant system which has helped those people in the past two years is now being destroyed. Conservative Members should be aware that the destruction of the system will affect the construction industry as well as people who want to renovate their homes. I appeal to them to support the Opposition's motion.
We shall soon hear of the Government's intentions with regard to the housing investment programme. The Opposition are filled with fear that, once again, housing and construction will be badly affected. Yesterday, I received a letter from a body which calls itself the Confederation of Construction Specialists. I am sure that other hon. Members will have received similar letters. It makes my point excellently:

In 1982 the Government took a welcome (although overdue?) step and increased grant rates for the most important improvement work — installing basic amenities and major repair work.
The result was an immediate surge in much needed improvement work. The number of grant aided major renovations being carried out had almost doubled by the first half of 1983.
This surge in improvement work reflects all too clearly the fact that housing in poor condition tends to be occupied and owned by the poorest people. Without a high rate of grant they simply cannot afford to repair or improve their (often semi derelict) homes.
The Government decision to cut the grant rates back from 90 per cent. to 75 per cent. will mean that many poorer people will not now be able to afford home improvement or repair work.
The short lived house improvement surge will be stopped in its tracks by Government meanness.
Like the National Federation of Building Trades Employers, the Confederation of British Industry is not renowned for supporting Labour party policy. However, Mr. Malcolm Fordy, who is the ex-president of the National Federation of Building Trades Employers, was quoted in the magazine Building, as having told the CBI conference:
Painful damage will be caused by capital cuts. After the encouraging stimulus of Mrs. Thatcher's campaign to eliminate local authority underspend a year ago, and the construction packages in Sir Geoffrey Howe's last two budgets, the Treasury was now 'back to its old tricks'.
He continued:
We are perhaps being too polite and too considerate to the Government. Unless this conference acts urgently now to counter the curse of rigid monetary obsessions, this Government will not have a strong construction industry to fall upon in future years.
I never expected to agree with every word of a delegate at the CBI conference. The Government should support the motion, as it is sensible and intelligent. Many Conservative Members whom I have known for many years are present. They have fought for the construction industry and have argued as I have argued. If they are honest today and do not hide behind their party, they will get up as I used to get up and support the industry and those people who should be receiving improvement grants. They should tell the Government to change their policy—and to change it fast.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Ian Gow): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
welcomes the priority given by the Government to the promotion of home ownership and the repair and improvement of the housing stock through repair and improvement grants and the introduction of the Tenants' Charter and the entitlement of local authority tenants to improvement grants; and believes that these measures are of real benefit both to individual householders and to the construction industry.
I welcome the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) in his new capacity as shadow Housing and Construction Minister. The House knows the keen interest that he has always taken in the housing and construction industry. No one who has followed his career as I have can doubt the sincerity of his views or the depth of the conviction with which he holds them. I shall put those views in the context of the construction industry for which he has shadow responsibility and in the context of the tentative attempts which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) is making to move the Labour party away from some of its more ludicrous policies.
I begin by referring to an article which the hon. Member for Walton wrote in the March 1983 edition of Marxism Today to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the death of Karl Marx. The hon. Gentleman wrote:
Through the study of Marx, I became dedicated to fundamentally changing and destroying capitalist society".
The construction industry is an important element of capitalist society and it will have been given no encouragement by those words, especially as they were written by the shadow Housing Minister. That is not all. The hon. Gentleman addressed the Labour party conference in Blackpool on 28 September 1970——

Mr. Neil Kinnock: The Minister really has been following my hon. Friend's career.

Mr. Gow: The Leader of the Opposition will want to hear my next quotation. The hon. Member for Walton said:
If ever there was an industry that required public ownership in one form or another, it is the building industry.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gow: No, I will not.
Any proposal to nationalise the construction industry for which the hon. Member for Walton has shadow responsibility would diminish the prospect of increased jobs now held out to the industry.

Mr. Allan Roberts: rose——

Mr. Gow: Mr. Speaker has asked us to be brief. I shall not give way.
I draw the attention of the House to a further piece of advice from the hon. Member for Walton. He wrote a book, "The Class Struggle in Parliament", to which his right hon. Friend the former Leader of the Opposition wrote a foreword. [Interruption.] I hope that the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks) will remain quiet while I make my speech. If he wishes to intervene, I shall give way.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: rose——

Mr. Gow: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I was seeking to give way to the former Patronage Secretary.

Mr. Allan Roberts: rose——

Mr. Gow: I shall not give way to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) either.
"The Class Struggle in Parliament" by the hon. Member for Walton is priced £3·90. I think that it is overpriced, but on page 272 the hon. Gentleman offers the following advice:
The young active revolutionary-minded Labour MP, unless he is careful, can quickly be ensnared in the aristocratic embrace.
He then added:
It is not inevitable and many have avoided it.
On page 96, however, we find a photograph of the hon. Member for Walton sitting close beside the second Viscount Stansgate sipping a glass of wine. We are told that the former right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East, who competed for nomination with the Opposition Chief Whip, is now seeking to return to the House following the defection of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley). I hope that the hon. Member for Walton will

follow his own advice and eschew the aristocratic company of the former right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East.

Mr. Michael Cocks: I am sure that on reflection the Minister will wish to withdraw the word "defection" in connection with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley), as it has connotations which are entirely unjustified in this case.

Mr. Gow: I accept that. I withdraw the word. I should have referred to the right hon. Gentleman's prospective departure.
The hon. Member for Walton rightly said that the most important part of the Opposition motion related to improvement grants.

Mr. Allan Roberts: rose——

Mr. Gow: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Member for Walton himself acknowledged the marked contrast between the policies of the Labour Government which he briefly adorned and those followed by the present Administration. In view of the Labour Government's appalling record on improvement grants, I am greatly surprised that the Opposition have chosen this topic for today's debate. Indeed, I regard it as impertinence for the hon. Gentleman to raise the matter.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) said in his intervention, in their last full year of office the Labour Government spent £90 million on improvement grants. That expenditure rose to £200 million in 1981–82 and to £430 million last year and it is likely to exceed £650 million in the current year. I see no reason why next year's spending on improvement grants should not be about three times greater in real terms than the pitiful performance of the Labour Government during their last year in office.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gow: No, I shall not give way.
The plain fact is that since 1979 we have made the grant system more flexible, more generous and better attuned to priority needs. [Interruption.] It is clear how much importance the Leader of the Opposition attaches to this subject.
We have provided local authorities with the resources to give grants in numbers unheard of throughout the Labour Government's period of office. Under the Labour Government, repair grants were available only to people in severe financial hardship who lived in housing action and general improvement areas. Between 1974 and the beginning of 1979—that is, during the entire five-year period—only 500 such grants were made in England.
In the first six months of this year more than 44,000 such grants were made — 90 times as many as were made in the entire five years of the Labour Government in which the hon. Member for Walton held office for a brief period. We did not just talk about the problem of disrepair. We have done something about it, through the Housing Act 1980, by extending eligibility for repairs grants to a much wider range of pre-1919 houses in need of major repairs.
It was this Government who provided 90 per cent. rates of grant for people in financial hardship, wherever they lived. Before 1980 such higher rates had beeen available only to those in housing action areas. We also excluded


grants for disabled occupants from the rateable value limits. This Government, too, enabled occupiers to receive grants as of right to install a single missing basic amenity even if the house still lacked other such amenities. It was this Government, too, who gave local authorities more scope to grant-aid small improvements such as the installation of better heating in one room and encouraged authorities to use those powers, expecially for the elderly.

Mr. Donald Stewart: rose——

Mr. Gow: No, I shall not give way.
It was this Government who enabled tenants in both the private and public sectors to receive grants for the first time. Some might say that we have stolen the Labour party's clothes, but the truth is that when in government —an opportunity unlikely to be repeated—the Labour party showed little inclination to wear them.

Mr. Reg Freeson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gow: No, I have been asked to be brief. Many hon. Members on both sides wish to take part in the debate.

Mr. Freeson: The Minister is frightened of us.

Mr. Gow: I am certainly not frightened of the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) or of the House.
We have now decided that next year, in most circumstances, we should revert to the 75 per cent. grant. The higher rate of 90 per cent. will still be available for those who would suffer financial hardship from any lower rate. The present rate will also be available to anyone who applies for a grant by 31 March 1984 even if the grant approval and the actual works come in the new financial year. I am sure that the rates of grant which will apply from 1 April next year, which are higher and more widely available than those under the Labour Government, will be regarded by many people as generous.
To reinforce the temporary availability of 90 per cent. grants, we have provided special resource allocations this year for some local authorities which needled them. I am glad that so many authorities have responded with so much vigour to our encouragement. This was never intended to be a permanent measure. Next year, local authorities will still have full freedom to allocate a substantial part of the HIP resources for this purpose as well as capital receipts which they hold or acquire in the coming months.
There has been some wild talk within and outside the House to the effect that my announcement last month about home improvement grants in 1984–85 signalled a change of course by the Government. That is nonsense. When the higher rate of grant was announced in March 1982 the then Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear that it would he a temporary measure only. I quote his exact words:
This increased rate of grant will apply only to applications received before the end of 1982. The purpose is not to add to longer term demands on the industry but to encourage the early take-up of immediate spare capacity."— [Official Report, 9 March 1982; Vol. 19, c. 750.]
In fact, we have twice extended the scheme—first to the end of March 1983 and then to the end of the current financial year.
The hon. Member for Walton referred to the general condition of our housing stock. I am fully aware of the

problem of disrepair and we shall continue to adapt our policy in the light of changes in the condition of the housing stock.

Mr. John Fraser: A few minutes ago the Minister carefully said that in the coming months local authorities would be able to reinvest their capital receipts. Does the word "months" in that context confirm today's story in The Guardian that after this financial year the Treasury will start to claw back capital receipts from the sale of council houses?

Mr. Gow: I certainly do not intend to confirm the report in today's edition of The Guardian.
In future, as at present, it will be for authorities to determine their own priorities in the use of 'capital resources, but the Government expect continuing emphasis to be placed on the repair and improvement of the existing housing stock. The resources that we shall make available to local authorities will allow them, if they wish, to tackle those defective dwellings in their own stock that need immediate attention. There is no reason why at the same time they should not also be able to maintain a significant programme of home improvement grants.
I wish to make a broad comment on the general housing scene. For the first 70 years of this century the dominant issue was the scarcity of houses. Very few houses were built during the 10 war years, when nearly 250,000 houses were destroyed. Given the rapidly rising number of households, successive Governments rightly concentrated on producing more dwellings of all kinds. By 197'7 the then Labour Administration were able to record in their Green Paper, Cmnd. 6851, that there were 500,000 more dwellings than households. As I have said, that was not our Green Paper, but the Labour party's Green Paper. By the end of last year the figure had grown to approximately 1·1 million.
Of course I accept that the true housing situation cannot be gauged simply by this crude surplus — substantial though it is. Certainly those statistics are of no comfort to those living in crowded or substandard conditions. We must take full account of the condition of that stock, on which I shall have more to say in a moment, but over the coming years families will be better placed than ever before to express their choice in terms of the kind of housing they want.
A second major fact overlooked by the hon. Member for Walton is the dramatic growth in home ownership. By June 1983 nearly 62 per cent. of dwellings in England were owner-occupied—an increase of more than 5 per cent. since the Conservative Government came to power in May 1979. This year's Building Societies Association survey showed that 77 per cent. of all households and 90 per cent. of households in the age range 25 to 35 saw their ideal housing tenure as owner occupation.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Minister give way"

Mr. Gow: No, I shall not. The Government's policy, including the right to buy, is in accordance with the people's expressed preference. Since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister arrived in Downing street more than 600,000 local authority, new town and housing association homes have been sold, the vast majority to sitting tenants. I pay tribute in particular to the 66 Labour-controlled councils that have completed the sale of 1,000 houses or more under the right to buy.
The hon. Member for Walton understandably placed much emphasis on the condition of the nation's housing stock. The truth is that in recent years we have seen a fundamental improvement in living conditions. Many serious problems of course remain, and I do not seek to minimise them, but I ask the House to consider the facts.
In 1971 nearly 3·2 million dwellings in England were either unfit, lacked at least one basic amenity such as a bathroom, or were in serious disrepair. By 1981 that figure had been reduced to just over 2 million, of which 300,000 were not being lived in. Therefore, it is misleading to argue that we are facing a situation of crisis proportions.
Only in terms of disrepair has recent progress given cause for concern. In the private sector, the primary responsibility — I underline the word "primary" — for keeping homes in good repair rests with individual owners. It is not axiomatic — provided the minimum statutory standards are achieved—that the taxpayer at large should be asked to foot the bill for this kind of work.
In the public sector, I have seen for myself plenty of evidence that the grave disrepair that exists on so many council estates is often the product of quite inadequate management by the councils concerned. It is not self-evident that the only answer is to throw more of the taxpayers' money at the problem. The 1983 HIP return of one major London borough describes more than 22 per cent. of its council stock as difficult to let—more than 14 per cent. of the entire housing in the borough. Yet more than £375 million has been spent on housing capital programmes by that authority since 1974–75, not to mention its expenditure on management and maintenance of council dwellings, which is now running at more than £44 million a year.
Regrettably, that kind of performance is not unique and suggests that the causes are to be found both in original errors of design in relation to real needs and in the quality of housing management. We must certainly think and act radically with regard to management and tenant involvement.
Major lessons should be learnt and applied from the work of our priority estates project, for which I have just agreed a three-year extension until 1986–87. I am sure that dramatic improvements can result from this and other initiatives aimed at restoring a decent quality of life on some of our rundown council estates.
In future, the role of local authorities will be different. The need for massive public sector house building programmes is a thing of the past, and I am glad to say that most local authorities recognise that. Of the total 1983 housing investment programme bids from English authorities, only 26 per cent. related to new build expenditure which they wished to incur, compared with 64 per cent. on various aspects of renovation and repair.
Increasingly, that diminished public sector new build programme will rightly concentrate on meeting the special needs of the elderly and the disabled. From the HIP returns, I am glad to see that more than 250,000 sheltered dwellings are now provided by local authorities—the highest number ever—and I look forward to further increases in housing to serve special needs.

Mr. David Winnick: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Gow: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue. We are short of time and many hon. Members wish to speak.
Part of our amendment deals with the Government's main housing priorities. We wish to extend the widest opportunities to those who wish to own their own homes, and most people do. We are now in the business of transforming what for many was a dream into reality. Since May 1979, in addition to the 600,000 people who have bought from public authorities, another 1·4 million households have entered owner occupation—a total of 2 million new owner occupiers in four years.
The house building industry has responded to this demand. Despite the difficult economic circumstances in which it has operated over the past few years, private housing starts in Great Britain are said to be likely to reach 165,000 this year— 17 per cent. up on 1982, and a figure that was last exceeded 10 years ago during the premiership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath).
We shall do all in our power to create the right climate to allow private house building to continue to be the main provider of people's housing needs and aspirations. The abatement of inflation and the return of sound money have meant that house prices in relation to average earnings have fallen significantly below the 3·5:1 ratio that has obtained over most of the period since 1945. Currently, building societies have ample funds to meet current mortgage demand and to reduce mortgage queues. Consumer confidence is higher now than for several years.
Last, but emphatically not least, the Government are taking further steps to promote the right to buy. The Government amendment refers to the promotion of home ownership. Our new Housing and Building Control Bill now in Committee will extend the right to buy to 50,000 tenants whose landlords do not own the freehold of their dwelling.

Mr. Winnick: Why will the Government not give private tenants the right to buy in law?

Mr. Gow: I answered the hon. Gentleman in the first Question Time in this Parliament.
The Bill will give to less well-off tenants the right to buy on "shared ownership" terms; it will increase the discount for 400,000 tenants from 50 per cent. after 20 years' tenancy to 60 per cent. after 30 years' tenancy; and it will reduce the right-to-buy qualifying period from three to two years, giving to another 250,000 tenants the immediate right to buy. And we intend, as I have told the Committee, to amend the Bill further to allow periods of occupation spent in other public sector tenancies to count for right to buy qualifying and discount purposes.
The Government also regard the private rented sector as a way of providing a further crucial element of choice and flexibility in the housing market, particularly for the young, the single, and the mobile. Continued decline of this sector is in no one's interest.
The Opposition have adopted — very unwisely — a wholly destructive attitude to the private rented sector. Their threat to repeal the shorthold provisions of the Housing Act 1980 was repeated in the 1983 manifesto. The manifesto went on to list measures to impose still further burdens on private landlords. Although we know what the electorate thought of that manifesto, I suspect that the Opposition have so far learnt little from their experience.
The Government are determined to build on the measures introduced in the 1980 Act, despite the Opposition's attitude. The response to the assured tenancy scheme is most encouraging. Over 100 bodies have been approved to let on an assured tenancy basis, outside the Rent Acts. Certainly the assured tenancy scheme provides an opportunity both for investors and for tenants looking for modern housing for rent in the private sector.
We are examining the existing legislation affecting the private rented sector as a whole. The truth is that legislation designed to help the tenant has succeeded in drying up the supply of rented accommodation. We have succeeded unwittingly in injuring precisely the kind of people whom we were trying to help. We must aim to establish conditions in which landlords have the confidence, the incentives and the desire to invest in the private rented sector. At the same time, we must and shall provide proper protection for tenants.
In earlier debates concern has been expressed on both sides of the House, notably by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler), about the problems of management in privately owned blocks of flats, especially in London. In response to this, as the House knows, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in 1982 set up a working party under a distinguished chairman, Mr. J. N. C. James, whose report, published in January this year, was an important step forward.
Some of the working party's recommendations were essentially matters for the parties involved; for example, the working up of an agreed code of practice for the management of residential blocks. I hope that those directly involved will now press ahead with the implementation of those recommendations.
However, many of its other recommendations would involve legislation. Before we can decide whether it would be right to alter the statutory relationship of landlords and tenants in this area, and in what way, we would need more evidence. I have decided to set up a committee of inquiry to consider the matter and report as soon as possible. I have in mind the following terms of reference:
To collect and examine evidence of the nature, scale and incidence of problems for landlords and tenants arising from the management of privately owned blocks of flats; to assess the difficulties caused by these management problems and to make recommendations on how they might be resolved.
I hope to be able to announce shortly the names of the chairman and members of the committee, and the date on which it will start work.
The amendment in the name of my right hon. Friends also refers to a tenants' charter. Let no one in the House be under the impression that the Labour party is anything other than a latecomer to the principle of a tenants' charter. There was a memorable occasion in the House which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will remember when my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) sought to bring in a private Member's Bill to introduce a tenants' charter. That Bill was voted down by the Labour party. It is all very well for the former Patronage Secretary to keep sniggering about it, but he was one of those who opposed the Bill.
Through the tenants' charter provisions of the Housing Act 1980 we gave for the first time public sector tenants of local councils, new towns and housing associations a number of new statutory rights. First and foremost was the right to buy, but there was also the right to security of

tenure, the right to improve their homes, rights to information, and the right to be consulted about housing management proposals. These rights were intended to give tenants a greater sense of belonging, a greater sense of responsibility, and a greater willingness to help build a better quality of life for themselves and their fellow tenants.
We are extending the rights under the charter. The Housing and Building Control Bill now in Committee will confer two new rights on secure tenants: first, to carry out repairs for themselves, if they so wish and to be reimbursed for doing so; and secondly, the right to information about charges for communal heating systems.
We have also set up the tenants exchange scheme. This enables public sector tenants who want to move to another council's area to have their needs registered and displayed in the chosen parts of the country. There are now nearly 40,000 registrations under the scheme. Some councils are helpful in their attitude towards people who want to exchange. Many, however, are unnecessarily restrictive. Accordingly, I have decided to help tenants in their exchanges by introducing a right to exchange.
I have issued today a consultation paper outlining the Government's proposals for giving secure tenants a statutory right to exchange. Following consultation, I intend to introduce an amendment to the Housing and Building Control Bill. In essence, our proposals would allow, as of right and subject to certain safeguards, secure tenants to assign their tenancies to other secure tenants of the same or other landlords. Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Library.
It is excellent that we should have a debate on housing. I think that the Opposition have made a grave error of judgment in seeking to base the debate exclusively on improvement grants. The record of the Labour party is a record of which, as the hon. Member for Walton said, he had no reason to be proud.

Mr. Heffer: rose——

Mr. Gow: No; I am just finishing. The Government have every reason to be proud of their record on housing improvement grants. I hope that the Opposition motion will be roundly defeated.

Mrs. Renée Short: I am delighted to be able to take part in the debate so soon after being elected chairman of the Transport and General Workers Union Members of Parliament in the House because many of my union comrades work in the construction industries, or did; unfortunately many of them are unemployed because of the Government's actions.
The Minister's speech gave no indication of the problems faced by local authorities. The reduction of the improvement grant from 90 per cent. to 75 per cent. will result in a considerable reduction in the total amount of reconstruction, rehabilitation and refurbishment work that can be done. The replacement of aging housing stock, which would have taken hundreds of years at the existing rate, will be further slowed down. That is a poor prospect for tenants who are waiting to have their houses improved.
In my constituency the position is very serious. The housing committee has just debated it. Its report states:
In view of the announcement about retrospective allocation arrangements for 1984/85, the projected figures for commitments


into that year were therefore a matter of concern. On the basis of grant approvals already issued the Council were committed to expenditure of approximately £4·8 million, of which some £3½ million was likely to fall for payment in 1984/85. Grants were currently being approved to a value in excess of £600,000 per month, and if this rate continued to the end of the financial year it was estimated that there would be a carry over of grant commitments into 1984/85 of approximately £6 million. Committed expenditure on the remaining aspects of the Capital Programme for 1984/85 was currently estimated at £14 million.
The housing committee has had to take drastic action and limit its priorities.
There are about 400,000 unemployed construction workers, and there will be many more before the year is out if the Government's programme continues. The construction industry has built up a flourishing export market in the middle east, the far east, Africa and even America. But if it is to be ground down by insufficient work at home, its export earnings will be affected.
Nearly £4 billion of exports were earned in 1982–83, of which the majority came from the export of building materials, plant and machinery. The work of contractors and consultants added significant amounts to that sum. The construction industry involves the building material producers that supply it, and which are affected by cuts in housing construction, new build or refurbishment. On analysis of the figures, and discounting distortions introduced by the Department of the Environment in the statistical data, it must be faced that in 1982–83 export earnings fell below those in 1981–82, so the slide has already begun. Competition from EC countries and America is becoming much tougher. Everyone knows that we cannot expect good export performance without a viable, expanding, home market.
While the Conservative party has been in office, the real value of the output of the construction industry has diminished while the number of unemployed has increased disastrously and the number of bankruptcies amoung smaller firms has risen. But more serious for industrial efficiency and future expansion is the requirement imposed by a shrinking market on the large firms that have had to dismiss established design teams, management teams and construction experts. In other words, they were mortgaging the future. It takes time to build up expertise, and those people will be difficult to replace.
The recent slight improvement in the private housing market is insufficient to halt that process. Compared with our major overseas competitors, the outlook is discouraging, and even dangerous to our economy and the future of our construction industry.
The total yearly product of the German construction industry, in equivalent money terms, is almost three times that of the British construction industry. Its productivity —output per man—is double that in Britain, and its loss due to the recession has been much lower. The number of unemployed building workers is half that in Britain. Why have Germans been able to develop their building industry and control the level of unemployment? Perhaps the Minister can answer that.
French productivity is even lower than that in Britain, but its unemployment rate is less and its total production is increasing. Investment in Germany on modern building plant is encouraged by the German Government, and 70 per cent. of building workers — despite the influx of untrained foreign workers — have a recognised skill.
That attracts special payments and bonuses. Yet this Government and our building employers are impervious to the need to professionalise the industry. They continue to use unskilled workers and offer no opportunity for training.
Some 50 years ago it was proposed that a special skilled job should be created for those working with concrete, yet that has not happened yet. Rather than cutting the allocation of money to the construction industry, the Government should encourage capital investment in building—as even the CBI is demanding— and abandon their damaging and outdated dogma and prejudice against public investment. Why do not the Government introduce tax benefits to encourage employers to retain their teams of designers, architects and engineers? They should encourage the renewal of our industrial building stock as a matter of urgency. They should reward increased efficiency and productivity. The CBI and the building unions alike are asking for those steps.
Bricks, blocks, steel, timber and many other components are needed to build and improve the housing stock. That would create many jobs to revitalise the stagnation created by the Government. But that work cannot be undertaken without vastly increased investment in the public sector, new build and improvements. That must be done sooner or later because we cannot continue with the present decline in building stock. If it is not done now, ultimately the home market of the British construction industry will be taken over by expanding European entrepreneurs, and nothing will remain of the British building industry.
The Government have a great deal of responsibility on their shoulders and the steps needed for the survival of the construction industry are clear. Unless those steps are taken and resources are injected into new build and improvement of the existing housing stock, the rapidly declining construction industry will decline still further. Foreign building firms will then attempt to take over our industry. I hope that the Minister is well aware of that problem.

Mr. Robert Hicks: I wish to concentrate my remarks on one aspect of the Government's approach to their housing investment programme and home improvement and repair grants in particular.
I wonder what effect the recent announcement and indications about future Government financial provision for grants will have on householders who have already made their applications, or will do so by 31 March 1984, but who are living in areas where local authorities have already exhausted their funds for the current financial year 1983–84.
There are three local authorities in my constituency, and all have had to suspend approving any further applications — not only because funds for the current financial year have run out, but because of the absence of a guarantee from the Government to provide adequate financial resources for 1984–85 for commitments arising from the approving of home improvement and repair grants between now and the end of the financial year. In south-east Cornwall, some 3,000 householders have found themselves in that position. Their applications have been properly submitted but cannot be approved.
The three local authorities can expect a total HIP allocation of £6 million to £7 million for the financial year 1984–85, plus any capital receipts that they obtain. Even if they were to use up all their HIP allocation for improvement and repair grant purposes—that would be impossible, because of their continuing new build commitments—there would still be a shortfall for the next financial year of more than £3 million.
I stress that I do not make such remarks lightly, or simply on behalf of my constituents. Local authorities in the constituencies of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House are in identical difficulties. Those problems are especially prevalent in rural areas such as the south-west, and perhaps in other areas where there is the attraction of the 90 per cent. grant incentive, plus the need to update old and declining housing stock. Indeed the embarrassing situation that I have outlined reflects the success of the home improvement scheme, under which grants are available at the enhanced rate of 90 per cent.
It will not be good enough for the Minister to say tonight, as he has already said in letters to me, that those grants are made at the discretion of the local authority. The House has known the facts right from the start of the programme announced by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer in March 1982, and confirmed in subsequent ministerial pronouncements. Today, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) mentioned that and my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction confirmed on the "Today" radio programme this morning that individuals who apply for grants between now and 31 March 1984 will be eligible for the enhanced rate of 90 per cent., providing that they satisfy the necessary criteria.
My interpretation, and that of other right hon. and hon. Members, is that the Government are still encouraging people to apply for grants under the scheme, designed to improve the quality of existing housing stock, in the knowledge that their application will still be looked upon favourably by the appropriate local authority. I hope that the Minister can put me right when he sums up the debate. It is difficult to reconcile the statements that are still being made with what is happening on the ground. Local authorities have been obliged, against their will, to suspend grant approvals because of the inadequate funds available this year, and because of uncertainty about the adequacy of financial resources that will be made available in 1984–85 for specific housing purposes such as improvement and repair, and for other housing commitments.
I genuinely find the situation very sad. My hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Walton acknowledged that the scheme has been an outstanding success in improving the quality of national housing stock.
Money spent in this manner is not inflationary. It assists the building and construction industry, thus reducing unemployment on the one hand and stimulating regional and local economies on the other hand. In my own part of the world, it has helped considerably to rejuvenate rural villages socially and economically. One has only to drive through them to see how enormously, as a result of successive Governments' home improvement schemes, their appearance has improved.
There can be no objection by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench on ideological grounds. Although it is public investment, it goes straight to the private sector because all the building firms involved come from the private sector. The scheme has enabled the nation

to enhance the quality of its housing stock. Bearing in mind demographic change and the current national housing situation, I have always felt that the home improvement scheme is just as important as the new building programme.
Above all, I am sad because the Government have, by their actions—they may yet put me right, and I hope they will — deliberately misled a significant and important number of people whom they and I purported to be encouraging. Those people are the householders. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, the ambition of most people is to own the property in which they live. It is unacceptable for the Government apparently to mislead those people deliberately, and it is difficult for me to reconcile myself to it, for the reasons I have outlined. As a consequence, unless my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State can put me right later, I shall feel obliged to express my feelings in the usual way in the Division Lobby at 7 o'clock.

Mr. Reg Freeson: The House owes its thanks to the hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks). I say that genuinely, in no partisan spirit, and with no intention of creating mischief. He gave the House a strong dose of realism and straight talking. His speech was realistic and refreshing.
The Minister for Housing and Construction was proud of his Government's policies. I shall not deal with the whole range of housing policies, although I shall go a little wide of improvements when I deal with that sub2ect. However much pride the Minister expressed, especially in the rhetorical conclusion of his speech, false pride will not solve the problems. He will have to do much better for the sake of all hon. Members than he did today. I say that not just because I am a member of the Opposition. The Minister will have to use better arguments about the housing problem. I am sorry to have to say that, irrespective of partisan points of view about housing. Each hon. Member learns to respect others on different subjects, even when we disagree. However, I am afraid that I did not find much merit in the Minister's remarks.
At some points in his speech the Minister played politics. It is not the first time that that has happened. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), as an ex-Minister I am and was far from satisfied about insufficient action during our period of office. I wish that all Ministers were prepared to say that. I frequently did at the Dispatch Box and outside the House. I said it not only when I was in Opposition. I wish that all Ministers were frank enough to say, "I wish that I could do more. I wish that I could do this, and that, but, for certain reasons I cannot. I hope to be able to do it." Ministers should say so, in whichever way they wish to express themselves.
On the facts of the matter, it is misleading to compare the position of the past few years with what happened in the previous period. It is true, as the hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East said earlier, that the figure of £90 million spent on improvement grants then was lower than the figures of recent years, but other improvement work was proceeding on a larger scale, in local authority and housing association housing policies and practices. Other work such as rehabilitation and improvement was under way on a scale way beyond present levels. Hundreds of millions of pounds were being made available during those


years as part of a deliberate and, I hope, coherent housing policy — not an ideologically based one — to bring declining and decrepit old housing back to a decent state.
I shall quote one figure as an example of what we achieved, and I could quote others. When I left office in 1979, housing associations were annually spending about half their housing resources, perhaps even more, on buying, modernising and converting old properties, particularly in inner city areas. That had reached just below 40,000 dwellings a year, and the figure was rising. However, they are now operating at just below 20,000 dwellings. Hundreds of millions of pounds that were going into the purchase, rehabilitation and conversion into modern flats of old, decrepit houses and mansion blocks, are no longer being spent.
There has been a considerable increase in improvement grants, most of it going to owner occupiers — about which I do not complain. Make no mistake, though, in the worst housing in the inner cities and deprived rural areas there has been a major reduction in activity. I represent an area that suffers particularly from this decline in activity, created not only by the fact that resources are no longer available, but by the rules and regulations being imposed by the Minister and his predecessor through their civil servants. These put constant obstacles, deliberately and on ideological grounds, in the way of local authorities and housing authorities — primarily local authorities —purchasing old properties.
We are talking about people suffering from housing problems. As a result of ideological dogma, local authorities have not been allowed to buy properties, modernise them and convert them into a decent place for families who are now homeless or living in decrepit buildings. I have had answers from the Minister's predecessor that make it clear that this is a matter of policy, not simply a matter of resources for purchase. These rules and regulations have produced a major reduction in activity in many inner city areas, and there will be more.
I shall deal now with some of the other matters raised by the Minister in his reference to history. Five years having elapsed since the period to which he referred, it is now time to concentrate on where we are now and where are going, so I shall deal with that. There is no doubt that the condition of housing, particularly pre-1919 housing, is getting worse. When the house condition survey of 1981 made that clear, it was not a revelation. The problems were underlined. They have existed for a long time, but they are getting worse, while fewer resources are being made available to deal with them.
The Government intend to make not just this cut, which is guessed to be about £200 million. There will be other cuts. The Minister will not deny that. Most of the guesses in the media suggest that about £400 million to £500 million will be cut by the time we reach the next financial year. We shall see. If there is such a cut in expenditure there will be a further — and not the first — major reduction in housing investment. I am not concerned to argue that the particular pattern of expenditure in any particular year or run of years is sacrosanct, or that it must always remain the same. I object to the cuts proposed and to the changes in the grants system, more because the way in 'which they were introduced, which has been well illustrated by the hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East,

has affected local authorities and customers. I object also because the cuts are in no way the result of a sensible and coherent review of housing policy. If there had been some review that logically led to a change in the pattern or the system, we might argue about the detail, but we could see some sense in the changes.
The third objection is that this is not so much a change in policy that has been thought out as it is a change in the level of resources going into improvement, an urgent aspect of housing need. It is a major reduction that will lead to further reduction.
These are the objections and on them we shall argue strongly. All who are seriously concerned about housing conditions should think seriously about where we are going. This is not just a bandying match across the Floor of the House, or even a genuine difference of view. We need more investment in housing. The house condition survey made this clear when it talked about the need for major works on housing.
We are concerned not only about pre-1919 housing. There has been growing evidence over a number of years, which is clearly shown in the 1981 report, that the problem is increasing in the inter-war housing estates, the owner-occupied houses, and is not confined to the Victorian era housing. The problem is not as big as it is among old properties, but if we do not tackle the inter-war housing with more resources and a reshaped improvement policy, if need be, serious problems will face whichever Minister and Government are in office in five or 10 years' time. The problem will not start then. It has started already.
Many of the people who are suffering who will continue to suffer and who will bequeath it to the next generation, are elderly owner occupiers who have neither the capacity nor the resources to undertake decent repairs of their properties, whether they are pre-1919 houses, or, increasingly, the inter-war housing that is falling into disrepair. These are not the old pattern of old private landlord properties which, for various reasons, are in a poor condition. There is a problem within the owner-occupied sector that has been growing for years and is now serious.
The survey showed that between 5 million and 7 million properties—about 24 per cent. of the nation's housing stock—are in need of major expenditure at all levels, be they pre-1919 houses or inter-war housing estates. It is in that area where some of our most serious problems lie.
There is also the question, frequently overlooked, whether much older property—despite the boom in the policy of rehabilitation, in which I participated, which I encouraged and which I still support—should be saved. I am referring to old properties that need to be replaced. I do not mean that they should be replaced by the high-density massive estates that were built—fashionably or under pressure of events—10 or 20 years ago. The need to replace them will become acute in the future.
We need some fundamental thinking. We must consider how to deal with the entire housing demand—rented, owner occupier, co-operative, housing association and the rest—as well as the need for stock replacement. Some fundamental economic questions have not been tackled by any Government so far on the question of the replacement of old properties, largely owner-occupied. While, as I have explained, some of the worst problems face the elderly, we have the problem of disrepair and increasingly we shall have to tackle the question of replacement.
I have a few matters to raise which inevitably are illustrated by my experience in Brent, to which I have alluded. However much the Minister may dislike our use of the word "crisis", in parts of the borough of Brent—I am sure that the same can be said of other inner city areas —we have reached a crisis. We now have 500 families in bed and breakfast accommodation. —[Interruption.] If the hon. Members will listen to what is being said and take it seriously, instead of trying to turn this into a flippant barney across the Floor of the House, they will have greater respect for people in need.
As I was saying, we have 500 families in bed and breakfast accommodation and their average expectation for rehousing is three years. That has nothing to do with the state of the local authority and it is idiotic for Conservative Members to think it has. It is because the local authority has not been given the authority or resources— nor have the housing associations that are active in the area—to obtain the properties that they need so as to rehouse those families.

Mr. Gow: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I came to the borough of Brent and visited some of the very families to whom he is referring.

Mr. Freeson: I was grateful for the Minister's visit. I would have been more glad if, when he returned to his office, he had changed the rules governing the purchase of properties. I sought to negotiate on this in a completely non-partisan fashion with his predecessor, but without success. If we changed the rules governing the procedures for the purchase of properties—which are now more antiquated and inhibiting then they were 20 years ago, when I was leader of the then Willesden borough council — we might get somewhere. We are more restricted today in the procedures that we must adopt for the purchase of properties for modernisation and rehousing than we were at the time of Lord Brooke when, as Minister, he was Henry Brooke.
That must be a nonsense administratively. If we are to bring those families out of bed and breakfast accommodation and house them decently within a reasonable time, more resources must be placed at the disposal of the local authority.

Mr. Vivian Bendall: rose——

Mr. Freeson: I am dealing with a vital matter. I will not give way because I am anxious to get my case across. I am representing my constituents and hundreds of thousands of people who need housing.
If the Minister says, "We must look for more efficiency, especially in administration," I might be prepared to argue that with him; I will visit any local authority department and any part of any housing association and use my endeavours to change procedures and attitudes, if there is a need. But let that not be used as a substitute for action by central Government. Although I speak passionately and strongly—I hope rationally also —on behalf of my constituents, it is a problem that is becoming an increasing curse to inner city areas throughout the country. We cannot in all humanity allow the present state of affairs to continue.
I am endeavouring to concentrate on specific areas, though I must mention other problems such as people who need transferring from high-rise blocks of flats to low-level accommodation — people with heart conditions.
There are many other needs. The transfer problem in our estates—the same applies in many inner city areas—is a growing one, about half the problem represented by the housing waiting list at the top end. They cannot be rehoused because there is no other accommodation in which to rehouse them.
The only way to handle these problems and prevent the deterioration of stock in the older areas is to change the rules and procedures and increase resources. I implore the Minister to accept—I argue this not in an ideological spirit; I will argue ideology on housing on another occasion—that I am arguing on behalf of individuals who come to see me for advice. My constituents write to me about these problems day in and day out, and I get only the tip of the problem. Those who work in the housing departments and the housing association offices get the worst of it, though in the end, of course, the people who get the very worst of it are those who do not get any answers and cannot get decent housing.
I have given the situation in Brent as an example of what is happening. From the national point of view, I warn the Government — whatever arguments are developed about the patterns of tenure, home ownership, private, local authority and housing association renting and so on —that if they do not become seized of the need for major public investment in a framework of coherent and consistent resource expenditure, our inner cities and certain deprived rural areas will be heading for social and physical disaster.
I am not suggesting that by a change of policy we can resolve all our problems in six months or a year. No Government could do that. But we could start to reverse the trend, and I appeal to the Government to search their heart and mind and act accordingly. Resources are needed, but they have not been forthcoming. On the contrary, they are being cut. Let us have those resources, and increase them, otherwise whoever is the Minister in a few years' time—of a Tory, Labour or any other Government—will be cursing the days of this Government's housing policy. I urge the Government to make the resources available and change their policy.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: Our ability as politicians to select a piece of information, a single statistic, and then, totally out of context, portray that as reality when it is a distortion of reality seems to be legendary, and today the Opposition are offering us just such a gem. They seek to pluck a small perceived deficiency in an overall well-balanced strategy and present it as illustrating the opposite of what is actually happening.
The right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) did exactly that—which irritates my hon. Friends and me. There are Conservative Members who care just as much about society and who can at least have a clear conscience about what has been achieved. Left-wing Members always manage to avoid matching their words with actions, and so appear as the good guys.
The House deals mainly in macro statistics —telephone numbers that mean very little to the man in the street. However, in rejecting the motion and supporting the Government's amendment I believe that it is important to deal with reality at the sharp end, and with local authorities and their housing stock. Until recently, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr.


Kaufman) led the Opposition in Committee. He accused me of bringing what he called "Nottingham gossip" into the debate. Strangely enough, the right hon. Gentleman thereafter drew on his experience in Manchester. However, at least he was honest enough to record his general opposition to the right to buy and related matters. He has now passed on to other things and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is seeking to establish his credentials by putting his name to this afternoon's nonsense.

Mr. Heffer: I do not need to establish my credentials.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: In my city there are about 1,600 empty council homes, some of which have been empty for more than a year. They are monuments to the contrived publicity that lack of Government money is to blame. In fact, the real cause is political dogma mixed with the inefficiencies that are almost inevitable in large housing administrations. For example, the refusal of the repairs section to permit sensible multi-trade craftsmen to complete a job in one, means that fewer repairs—not more—are achieved with the money available. Our city embodies—and it cannot be alone—the reality of that famous Flanders and Swann ditty "The Gas Man Cometh" with its sequence of trade skills.
The right to buy has given our authority all the funds that it could reasonably expect, to do the things that should be done.

Mr. Winnick: Obviously the hon. Gentleman favours the right to buy. Is he in favour of private tenants having the same right in law, so that they can buy the dwellings in which they live?

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: The short answer is no. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I am sure that the Minister will give hon. Members a better reply than I could. We have suggested homesteading to the majority Labour party in our city, but we have had no luck. Of course, it would put many of those empty properties quickly into use, but that would mean even more owner occupiers, and that would never do. On 5 July I told the House of our transfer scheme, but that, too, was stopped when Labour took control in 1979. A controlled scheme ensuring that the transferred purchaser left his tenanted home in good and reasonable condition would further reduce the demand on public resources and speed up housing for those in need.
I appreciate that there are dangers. It has been suggested that authorities might put highly unsuitable disruptive tenants into otherwise satisfactory high rise flats, with a view to their conduct leading to a decline in the quality of the property and subsequent claims for demolition assistance. I do not challenge the statement that there are some high rise blocks that must, on objective grounds, come down, and that there are others which, on more subjective grounds, might have to come down. However, we objected strongly to our Labour authority dealing with the matter in such a way as to burden its tenants with an astronomic cost which unnecessarily adds to their rents.
By the statement in the local version of the "Thoughts of Chairman Mao" that Labour would not allow the flats to fall into the hands of private developers, £1·5 million or about £1 per week in rent per home was added just for

a piece of political dogma. Our authority has doubled its expenditure on repairs; to little obvious effect. As has been said, cash expenditure alone does not create jobs or, necessarily, lead to economic activity. The Opposition, who oppose our right to repair, and the phoney ill-conceived Bill presented to the House by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), show the real face of the Labour party. I should have thought that, properly exercised, such a right of repair must represent a constructive contribution to the very aims of the Opposition's motion. However, they oppose that very real improvement in tenants' rights.
I can illustrate Labour's attitude to past tenants and its approach to real people in another way. A mortgagor who sought to improve and extend his newly acquired home was refused an increase in his loan. By switching to an alternative funding source, our housing sub-committee deemed the transfer a disposal and reclaimed the £1,200 discount that the tenant had been granted.
I shall deal now with Labour's attitude to a housing improvement programme. Labour says that the Government have not accepted its statement of need. I am not surprised. Labour's attitude is to think of a number that is high enough to ensure that some lesser sum will be agreed, and then to present the result as a cut. Two years ago we asked for £30 million and obtained £20 million. Locally it was splashed that the wicked Government had cut one third of that money, or a whole £10 million, off our needs. Labour should have asked for £40 million—"Housing programme cut in half' would have made a better headline.
The same applies to the reference to urban aid. Knowing full well that £4 million to £5 million was a likely offer, a bid for £7 million was made. Some of that application was deliberately outside our inner city boundary, thus ensuring that the full application would not be granted. In the end, £4·5 million was approved and Labour smugly announced that we had cut £2·5 million from its needs.
The Labour party's conduct where it matters — in local authorities—defies any words that are permitted in this House. However, it means that I and my colleagues can support the Government with a clear conscience.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The shorter the speeches, the more hon. Members I shall be able to call.

Mr. Ron Davies: Your strictures are noted, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall attempt to comply with them.
We have just heard a mean and nasty little speech from the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo). It was partisan and reeked of complacency. I suppose that was excusable, given that he did not address his remarks either to the motion or to the amendment. I also suppose that he is representative of the new generation of Conservative Members whose only experience of housing problems lies in deciding which one of their many homes they will live in that weekend—[Interruption.] I should welcome it if any Conservative Member would like to deny the truth of my remarks, or provide evidence that they are untrue.
I represent a part of the United Kingdom that has a housing problem of crisis proportions. I am glad that a


Minister from the Welsh Office is in the Chamber to listen to the problems of housing in Wales. When he goes away tomorrow, I hope that he will urge the Secretary of State for Wales to spend a little more time dealing with the housing problems of Wales and a little less time helping to speed through planning applications on behalf of the Prime Minister's husband. Of course, I should also welcome it if any Conservative Member wished to challenge that remark.
In 1981 the English house condition survey made a comparison with the situation in Wales via the Welsh house condition survey. In Wales, 8 per cent. of all households lacks one or more basic amenities. Houses without an inside WC amount to 5·4 per cent. and 4·3 per cent. do not have a bath. Since 1979, the Government have done nothing to redress the imbalance between England and Wales. A capable, logical or rational Government would have attempted to redress the imbalance in the distribution of resources. That has not occurred. One report stated:
The results of the 1981 survey suggest that the overall state of repairs of Welsh housing stock has deteriorated since 1976.
Between 1976 and 1981, the number of defective properties in England fell from 2·22 million to 2·01 million — an improvement. Wales experienced the reverse, and it is not difficult to find the reason. It lies with the ineffectiveness of the incumbents in the Welsh Office. Average housing expenditure in the United Kingdom is about £79 a house: in England, average expenditure is £70 a house and in Wales it is £52 a house. This is not a record of which anyone can be proud or one which the Secretary of State, who is the responsible Minister and who has presided over that decline, can attempt to justify, let alone support.
In 1982, Shelter—a group that many Opposition Members will recognise as being in the forefront of housing battles — reported that since 1970 Wales has been—[Interruption.] If Conservative Members wish to argue, I am prepared to give way. If they wish to challenge, they should stand; if they do not wish to challenge my figures, they should remain seated and await the opportunity to present their arguments.
In 1982, Shelter reported——

Mr. Charles Irving: I did not say a word; I am a member of Shelter.

Mr. Davies: I was addressing the multitude, not the individual.
The Shelter report suggested that we had been underfunded by £370 million over 10 years. My county of mid-Glamorgan is the most deprived in Great Britain, with 20,500 houses classified as unfit and 9·2 per cent. of all dwellings lacking an indoor WC. The county next on the list of deprived counties is Powys with 6·1 per cent. of houses without an indoor WC. The most deprived and the second most deprived counties in the United Kingdom lie in Wales. What a proud record for the responsible Minister. In mid-Glamorgan, 6·1 per cent. of all properties are without a bath, and in Powys 5·3 per cent. are without a bath. Again, the two most deprived counties without these facilities lie in Wales.

Mr. John Butterfill: Are the figures that the hon. Gentleman has been citing caused by inadequate funding or incompetent management by those authorities? Are they receiving significantly less money from central Government than comparable authorities?

Mr. Davies: The conditions are caused by the incompetent management by the Welsh Office and inadequate funding. Our problems are reflected in the statistics and in a series of personal tragedies.
I was a member of a local authority for 14 years. Other hon. Members have spoken of their meetings at Saturday morning surgeries with young couples who are entering marriage or trying to bring up young children in conditions of appalling degradation. I have met middle-aged couples who are suffering the first effects of a life spent working in the steel or coal industries, and they are asking for transfers. It is a hollow promise to provide a statutory right to a transfer when the houses to which these people should be transferred have been sold. Elderly people who are nearing the end of their lives are living in squalour, and they are asking for transfers. The Under-Secretary might say that we cannot afford them. The theoreticians among the Conservative party may say that that is the price that people must pay if we are to live in a free, democratic or capitalist country. They say that we cannot afford to spend money on housing.
I regard this as a matter of choice. We have free will and the essence of democracy is that choices are made. Unfortunately, decisions are made in Cabinet and in the Welsh Office where the choice must be between providing adequate housing for young people and spending money on bombs. The Government show their preference for cruise and Trident missiles, not housing for young people. When deciding between allocating funds for improvement grants for middle-aged couples and their families and spending money on an airport in the Falkland Islands, the Government chose not the people of this country but those in the Falkland Islands. When the choice is between elderly people and tax concessions for the oil companies and the rich, we know the Government's decision. The Government give those tax concessions and turn their back on those people——

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that Welsh local authorities spent £50 million less on housing in 1982–83 than they could have done and £35 million less in the previous year? In other words, during those two years they failed to spend the £85 million that could have been spent on housing.

Mr. Davies: This is not the first time that I have heard that tale. Each time the Under-Secretary provides those figures, he becomes less impressive. On the last occasion, he was addressing a conference of Welsh local authority housing associations, and he gave a miserable performance. The hon. Gentleman might have raised his point to put me off my stride; he will not succeed. Whenever the Government have the choice between providing for the needs of the people and making the most brutal, offensive, callous and wasteful decisions, they decide on the latter. If it is a choice between houses and bombs, inevitably the Government choose bombs. The Government tell us that that is an inevitable consequence of capitalism. We reject that point.
I am prepared to take issue with what the Under-Secretary said about housing allocations. In 1980–81 the local authority in the district which is a prime pan of my constituency of Caerphilly and which I have the honour to represent with my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), made a bid to the


Welsh Office for £7·48 million. The allocation was £5·15 million. Sixty-nine per cent. of the bid was allocated. It might have escaped the hon. Gentleman's attention that the bid was presented in 1978 prices; the allocation was spent in 1980–81 prices. Because of the increase in inflation between 1978 and 1981, the allocation that was received could purchase only 46 per cent. of the original bid.
The Under-Secretary piously tells us that we are not spending £50 million of resources when they are given in November, December or January. In a last-minute throwaway, local authorities are supposed to gear up and process the applications. They are supposed to take on staff and bring in the builders' estimates. People are expected to obtain estimates and planning consent within three months. It is hypocrisy, and the Minister knows it.
The circumstances affecting my local authority, Rhymney valley, are paralleled elsewhere in mid-Glamorgan. A working party of local authorities in mid-Glamorgan referred to the 1981–82 allocation which was only 72 per cent. of the 1980–81 allocation. The report stated:
Inflation has cut that 72 per cent. to only 62 per cent. of the 1980–81 investment ability and that was only 46 per cent. of what the county's bid totalled. In real terms therefore the allocation represents only 29 per cent. of the levels that local authorities believe is necessary to resolve the housing problem of mid-Glamorgan.
That is a foretaste of a future Welsh housing crisis.
My local authority has an estimate of expenditure for 1983–84 of £2·5 million to £3 million. It has a carry-over from the current year of £2·5 million to £3 million and £9 million is allocated to committed grants. Further applications between now and the end of the year will amount to £3 million. That gives the local authority an expenditure figure for next year of between £12 million and £15 million. Its choice, unless the Government take action, is to abrogate commitments or make cuts elsewhere in its capital investment programme. The majority of Welsh housing authorities are faced with similar, if not worse, circumstances.
I make a few suggestions which are offered more in hope than in expectation. They are not a shopping list of dogma which will traumatise the Tory theorists. They are sensible, practical proposals designed to help resolve the Welsh housing crisis. The Minister should restore expenditure to the 1983 level. Additional resources should be earmarked for the most disadvantaged areas. The Minister should guarantee a continuation of policy for five years. That is the only way in which local authorities can tool themselves up and householders can make their applications. It is the only way in which the building industry which is dear to the hearts of Conservative Members, will be able to prepare itself if it wishes to meet the challenge.
The Minister should be prepared to guarantee exemption from rate capping for all related revenue expenditure incurred by local authorities in processing applications. He should discount that expenditure when it comes to the assessment of the GRE. The Minister should reduce the complexity of grants. We have three grants — improvement grants, intermediate grants and repair grants. If a property has a problem, the property should be

looked at as a whole. Local authority expertise should be used so that the system can offer the most appropriate grant to the house owner in the light of his circumstances.
I am sure that my next point will appeal to Conservative Members. The Government should introduce a system of tax relief for mortgages which are taken out to pay for repairs. If there is underspending at the moment, one of the main reasons is that people cannot raise mortgages to meet the cost of repairs. Interest relief is allowed on mortgages, second mortgages and improvement mortgages, so why not on repair mortgages? The Government could do away with VAT on repairs. There is no VAT on house purchase. The person who has a small job to be done or who wants a small bathroom or roof is discriminated against. The Government are prepared to make big concessions to people who wish to build or buy their second or third property.
The Government should develop a scheme of maturity mortgages. In mid-Glamorgan there are 60,500 unfit properties occupied by unemployed people. A maturity mortgage scheme would allow those properties to be rehabilitated and allow those people to obtain the mortgages necessary. The scheme has been agreed in principle. Why do you not take the necessary steps to ensure that those mortgages are made available? It is because of your apathy and complacency. It is because there are Ministers in the Welsh Office who——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Member must not accuse me of apathy and complacency. It is not my responsibility.

Mr. Davies: I was referring to the Minister, as I am sure he knew.
I come to my last point, which I am sure will be a great relief, but I am sure that hon. Members appreciate that I had to give way to the Minister.
We should pay full regard to housing associations. [Interruption.] I am conscious of all the messages I am receiving. There are 40,000 houses in Wales capable of being repaired. Housing associations are underfunded. Welsh housing associations receive £41 million from the Housing Corporation. They should receive £57·5 million.
If the Minister and the Secretary of State for Wales are serious when they say that they wish to represent Welsh interests, they should go to the Cabinet and start fighting for the interests of the Welsh people instead of tagging along on the coat-tails of the Department of Employment.

Mr. Vivian Bendall: I must declare an interest, as I am an estate agent, surveyor and auctioneer. As a result, I might be able to give the House the benefit of my experience in these matters. I agree that housing should not be the political football that it has been for a number of years. However, I do not believe that there has been any period during the term of office of a Labour Government when housing grants have been as high as 90 per cent.
Honesty and integrity are missing from this debate, because when the Government announced the 90 per cent. grants they made it absolutely clear that they would be for a limited period only. The housebuilding and other industries, and the nation, were fully aware of that fact. It would be preferable to have such announcements more


often. so that we would know exactly where we were going. I found the Government's announcement refreshing, because everyone knew where he stood.
On no fewer than two occasions the Government agreed to extend the period involved and gave specific dates for the extension. It is unfair, as some people in the private and public sectors have done, to accuse the Government of cutting resources. This is not a cut. It was a one-off provision. When the economy improves, we may be able to do the same again.
I should like some assurances from the Minister about those who have applications in the pipeline. Their plight worries some of us. Rightly or wrongly, the public and professional people who deal in property management gained the impression that provided applications were in by the cut-off date they would be processed and it would be possible to carry out the improvements.
I am not against private landlords disposing of their property to sitting tenants. However, we must consider whether a sitting tenant will be able to obtain a mortgage in the first instance, because many will have lived in their properties for many years and be beyond the age at which they can get a mortgage. Young tenants are rare, as the landlords invariably dispose of their properties once they become empty. The private tenanted property, properly managed and run, plays a specific part in the nation's housing stock. Not everyone wishes to purchase his own home or to live in a council property.
We have discussed the age of our housing stock and its state of repair. The small private landlord, not the owner occupier, will be most affected by the cut in the improvements grant from 90 to 75 per cent. I refer, not to the landlord who owns a large property company, but to those of my constituents who own one property but who may live in a property that is in a worse condition than that which they rent out. Such a state of affairs is common.
The one-property landlord will regard the reduction in the improvement grants as a serious blow. The reduction will have the effect of preventing him from carrying out the repairs, and local authorities will be obliged to take over the house and carry out the necessary repairs if the property is subject to a public health notice. Could a scheme be devised whereby a lower percentage grant is available to owner occupiers, but where grants slightly above 75 per cent. could be made in extenuating circumstances? We should examine seriously such a scheme.
There is an immense availability, net a shortage, of housing in the inner cities. Many owner occupiers, be they widows or widowers who live on their own, frequently possess much accommodation which they would be willing to let were they not deterred by the rules and regulations of the landlord and tenant legislation and the shorthold rent legislation. If we could eliminate the present form of shorthold tenancies, and the security of tenure attached to it, many of our housing problems in the inner cities would be eradicated and there would be much more mobility of labour, which at times of high unemployment is important. For a trial period we should allow the landlord who deals in shorthold property lettings to charge a reasonable rent without being subjected to the problems inherent in security of tenure.

Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman rightly prefaced his remarks by saying that he was an estate agent. I understand the point of view of somone in that profession.
Does the hon. Gentleman remember that the Rent Act 1957, which was introduced by a Conservative Government, removed all forms of security of tenure for new tenancies? Far from such legislation leading to an increase in available tenanted properties, there was a substantial reduction, quite apart from the hardship, misery and Rachmanism caused by the Act.

Mr. Bendall: The Rent Act 1957 removed security of tenure for many properties above a prescribed rateable value. I suggest that where the landlord lives on the property, and could let some of the rooms, such property should not be subject to control. If that were the position, many more properties would be available for rent.
I have been concerned, as have many hon. Members, with the structural problems of Airey houses. When I discovered that the grants might be reduced, I asked the Minister for clarification about grants for repair to Airey houses, which until next April will remain at 90 per cent. I have an assurance from the Minister that grants up to 90 per cent. will be available for Airey houses after 1 April 1984. I am sure that that information will allay the fears of many people who would have been affected by such a cut, and I thank the Minister for his assurance.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Week after week in Committee the Minister reminds us that the Government have a mandate to do many things. The Minister prefaced his remarks today by reading from various books and literature, the relevance of which escaped me, when dealing with the important subject of housing. Will the Minister reflect what the Conservative party said in its manifesto at the general election:
Housing Improvement grants have been increased substantially in the last two years and will continue to play an important role."?
On how many occasions before the election did Conservative Ministers say that within four months the improvement grants would be reduced? How many speeches were made or questions answered stating that the grants were so temporary that within four months, and before the next financial year, they would be reduced to 75 per cent? The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) was clever enough with words to suggest that the reductions were not cuts. Hon. Members have heard that distinction before. The Health Service suffers from the same clinical distinction. People do not perceive what they see round them. Bodies such as the National Home Improvement Council have asked hon. Members to take this subject out of politics because it considers that the revitalisation of our housing stock is not a political issue. Many Opposition Members have been asked to contribute to a debate on a subject that in the past has been a matter of consensus between the political parties. It is difficult to take seriously the Government's arguments when not one of them deals with the consequences of such a reduction in grant, or the savage effects it will have on urban life, the construction industry and the welfare of many of our people, expecially the old. Two Conservative Back-Bench Members have expressed their unhappiness about such an unannounced about-turn in Government policy.

Mr. Gow: rose——

Mr. Hughes: I frequently do not have an opportunity to interrupt the Minister's speeches in Committee, and I


shall persist a little longer. I frequently have to wait for what the Minister calls his "flights of oratory", so I hope that I shall be permitted to proceed a little further.
Those bodies which have been involved for many years in house improvements have expressed anxiety that in the forthcoming financial year more than 100,000 people who have applications in the pipeline will be disappointed. The cost to the local authorities of disengaging themselves from processing the applications will be substantial, and there is no sign that in future the home improvement grants can be given.
The consequences in many local authorities, not just for the old—although often the elderly owner occupier is most in need of a grant to improve his home—are set out both in statistics and in general sociological terms in many of the documents that all hon. Members have received. The strongest indictment of the Government's proposals is that each year, because of the reduction in the grant that was built up and that all hon. Members welcome, tens of thousands of houses that could be saved will be boarded up, entire neighbourhoods will break up and the patterns of life that have been enjoyed for generations will be destroyed. The director of the National Home Improvement Council claims that those will be the effects of reducing a fundamental part of the investment needed to return the basic structures of life to a condition that a healthy economy should require as its first priority.
If 125,000 grant approvals do not proceed next year, if—as is predicted—we lose a possible 30,000 jobs in the construction industry, and if the welcome increase in grants from 5,000 in 1981 to 28,000 in 1982 and to 90,000 in 1983 is reversed, as it inevitably must be, I hope that the Government and especially the Minister will pay attention to the practical worries of all those involved in the past and present administration of those grants. Many authorities are worried about honouring their obligations, which people have been led to believe they can honour, to improve the housing in their areas. It does not matter which authority it is—it may be Medina on the Isle of Wight, whose documents I have here, or it might be my authority at Southwark, which may be the one to which the Minister referred when talking about London HIP bids — all authorities must be certain. What we are now discovering is that this Government will not become the Government of certainty and resolution, as they led us to believe that they wished to be. This is a stop-go Government. They say that the Health Service will be safe in their hands, then cut the money available to the Health Service. They said in June that home improvement grants would be continued, but four months later they reduced those grants.
The Government pride themselves, in the words of the Prime Minister, on being the Government who live by the budget of the householder. If one needs to budget, one must know how much money is coming in. One must be able to plan and, when resources are limited, one must eke out those resources so that next week or the week after there is some money left to spend on the essentials. How can local authorities and those who have invested a little money—the fees that they have paid when applying for a grant which they hope will be forthcoming in the next financial year—be expected to trust a Government who have led them to believe that they will come up with the financial resources, but who let them down so appallingly?

Mr. Gow: I resent the charge that I have not given way to the hon. Gentleman in Committee. I have never refused to give way to hon. Members in Committee. Whenever the hon. Gentleman is there I give way to him, as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) will confirm. I do not blame the hon. Gentleman for not being familiar with what the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget statement on 9 March 1982, because that was before the hon. Gentleman arrived here. However, I made clear in my speech what the Chancellor said, which was that this is a short-term measure. He said that we would have it only until 31 December 1982. It has been extended twice, but the Government always envisaged that the higher rate of grant would be a temporary measure.

Mr. Hughes: I know what the Chancellor said, although as the Minister rightly said I was not here. However, I have heard no denial of the fact that, as the Conservative party went into the election, it said nothing to suggest that the grant would be reduced during this financial year, and that those who were led to believe that their homes would be improved would be disappointed. Why did people apply in such great numbers, and why are the grant applications lying in piles on the desks of many local authority officials, if they believed, as the Government led them into the election, that the grants would be reduced during this financial year? There was no suggestion that the grants, although temporary, would end this year.

Mr. John Fraser: In the public expenditure document published in February, just before the election, the Government stated:
The results of the 1981 English House Condition Survey have reinforced the importance the Government attaches to improving the condition of the housing stock. The housing programme reflects a continued emphasis on this aspect of capital expenditure.

Mr. Hughes: The Government suggests in their amendment that the House should welcome
the priority given by the Government to the promotion of home ownership and the repair and improvement of the housing stock through repair and improvement grants".
If they believed that they could sustain the record that they began to build for themselves, they would not have introduced an amendment relating solely to the past. Clearly, they will make no concessions and they will not allay the fears expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House on behalf of those who know that they will be disappointed by the Government yet again.
As the hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) said this afternoon, the Government have misled the electorate. There are but 55 minutes remaining during which Ministers can tell those who are trying to improve housing and fight urban decay that the Government will assist them in that process. I hope that the Government will reconsider this half-baked and half-yearly alteration of a scheme that they began, and will assure local authorities that they will continue a policy that all parties wish to continue to support. The Government alone are backing down from a national responsibility, and I hope that they realise that if they persist, they alone must take the blame.

Mr. John Butterfill: The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) questioned the


competence of some Conservative Members to speak in the debate. The hon. Member whom he accused—my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) has been a member of the council in Nottingham for about 15 years. I am a fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and have been involved in that profession for more than 25 years. I see the problem of disrepair almost every day, and there is no lack of concern in the Conservative party about that matter.
We have heard some eloquent speeches from Opposition Members, and I have been privileged to listen to the eloquence of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) in the Committee discussing the Housing and Building Control Bill. His speech today, from my limited experience in the House, was probably the most eloquent that I have heard him make. I fear that perhaps the hon. Gentleman doth protest too much. There has been an almost hysterical quality in some Opposition speeches today which reveals that Opposition Members might believe that they are on poor ground when attacking the Government on this subject.
It is right that the public should know the facts. "By their deeds shall ye know them," should be the maxim. We should examine the Government's record and compare it with that of Opposition Members when they were in government. In 1974, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was Prime Minister, there were 192,000 grants. Under Labour, that number fell to 57,500 by 1978–79. That shows the extent of Labour's concern about improvement grants. They are shedding crocodile tears today.
It has taken some time for the number of grants to increase. Last year, the number had risen to 104,000 but in only the first six months of this year the number had increased to 97,000. The Government can be proud of their record. The hon. Member for Walton told us that expenditure on grants had risen from £90 million under Labour to £650 million now. That represents an increase of some 720 per cent. Those figures are impressive. The Government have made an unparalleled contribution to housing improvement. Conservatives should be proud of that record. It shows the extent of our interest in it.
It is not a matter of shame that we have abandoned the temporary arrangement which my right hon. and learned Friend the then Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in 1982. As my hon. Friend the Minister has said, it was a purely temporary measure that has been extended twice. That, too, demonstrates the level of our concern. Reverting to the normal level of grant—75 per cent.—was always expected.
I appreciate that reverting to the 75 per cent. level of grant might cause some difficulties for some local authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) illustrated the problems that it might create in his area. Local authorities that have promoted grants diligently might face some temporary difficulties after the Government's announcement, but other authorities have underspent and not attempted to promote the scheme. That is a balancing factor.
The important fact is that the Government increased expenditure when a nudge to the economy was required.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Just before the general election.

Mr. Butterfill: It was almost two years before the general election. The Government have always said that

the larger grants would be temporary. Under the inspired leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, we are at last seeing some recovery in the British economy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am quoting OECD figures. The British economy is growing faster than that of any other EC country. We can now afford to take our foot off the pedal. That is what the Government are doing. They deserve to be congratulated on their record. Unlike Opposition Members, I am not shedding crocodile tears today.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: Many hon. Members have said that improvement grants are to be reduced from 90 per cent. to 75 per cent. I have not had the opportunity to leave the Chamber to check on statements made by Scottish Office Ministers but I understand that Scotland is to be even worse off. The reduction there is to be from 90 per cent. to 50 per cent., except in housing action areas. I hope that the Minister will assure us that Scotland will not be put at a disadvantage to other parts of the United Kingdom.
Glasgow district council took full advantage of the Government's scheme. I do not mind saying that, of all the Government's decisions, increasing improvement grants was the best. It gave local authorities with severe housing problems an opportunity to get on with improving property. Rehabilitation has made a valuable contribution to the environment in Glasgow. We have many tenements and old buildings which community-based housing associations, local authorities and tenants have had sandblasted. They have also replaced windows and brought the interiors up to a high standard.
It is to the Government's advantage to continue modernisation schemes and grants. What the Government might gain by taking away the 90 per cent. grant they will lose in other ways. If properties are not improved, they will be demolished. If, as a result, the population moves out of inner-city areas, schools will no longer be necessary. Therefore, good substantial buildings such as schools, clinics, hospitals, post offices and even fire stations will be demolished because there is simply not enough population to sustain them. As a result, replacements will have to be built in other areas on peripheral schemes.
The level of recent grants has kept communities together. People who were moved to peripheral housing schemes have been able to move back to their old communities. The Government should not spoil that now. The improvement grants are good. Let us keep them. It is foolish to throw away the advantages that we have gained by rehabilitating property.
Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have said that it is not easy for a local authority to say, "Good, we now have Government approval for grants. Let us get started and tell people in our area that grants are available." Like most other large local authorities, Glasgow district council has had to set up separate departments — which are staffed with officials who have expertise in rehabilitation — just to consider grant approval and to help council tenants and people who want grants.
Some community-based housing associations started to get off the ground four or five years ago. It takes about live years for a good community-based housing association to


start getting contractors on site. Many of those people will now be disappointed because of the Government's decision.
Many private contractors who put in tenders to local authorities and private organisations operate on a profit margin of about 5 per cent. The tenders are cut very low in that industry. When I ask private contractors how they are doing they, tell me that they are "surviving". Survival is success in the building industry now.
Throughout the country, companies specialising in rehabilitation have sprung up in recent years. Other companies, which are excellent at new building, do not know where to start with rehabilitation. When I was in local government I came across companies which were highly successful in new building but got their fingers burnt when they went into rehabilitation because they could not cope with the work when the tenants continued to live in the houses, there were tradesmen everywhere, and so on. Many companies throughout the country now understand rehabilitation from A to Z.
For example, a contractor in Glasgow who obtained a large local authority contract set up two snagging squads to inspect the houses after rehabilitation to see whether there were any problems. That contractor was so good at rehabilitation that he had to disband the second squad because it was not needed. There is a danger that such companies and their expertise will be lost and that there will be increased unemployment in the industry. Many people in the building industry are guaranteed a job only from week to week, but with 4 million people unemployed that is still quite something.
I ask the Government to reconsider their action in view of the hardship that will be caused to so many people.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I am glad to follow the thoughtful and constructive speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin). I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take careful account of what the hon. Gentleman has said.
I make no accusation of bad faith on the part of the Government. As all hon. Members acknowledge, the grant scheme was announced as a short-term measure. I am extremely proud of the Government's housing record. Their policy has been a magnificant success. Throughout the land people have rejoiced at the right-to-buy policy. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was magnanimous enough to acknowledge, one of the best things that the Government have done has been to give improvement grants at a high level, thereby stimulating applications in probably every constituency in the land.
I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister to think again and intercede with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is the final arbiter and controls the purse strings, and tell him that the scheme must continue for a further year at the very least. I say that for three reasons. I shall explain them briefly, as I hope that another hon. Member will have the chance to contribute to the debate before the winding-up speeches begin.
First, like every hon. Member, I am concerned about the construction industry and the amount of unemployment in it. The proposed reduction in grant would be a real blow to the industry. I should hate to think of a further 20,000 or 30,000 people being put out of work after 31 March,

as the employers predict. One of the great things about this scheme is that there are no revenue implications. Arguments may be made against building new hospitals and the like—I do not say that I share them—because there is a revenue commitment. Here there is none, and it seems an extremely sensible way to spend money to prime the pump.
Secondly, there is the state of the housing stock. I do not like that phrase. I agree with Winston Churchill that "accommodation units" mean people's homes. When my hon. Friend the Minister said that 300,000 homes were not being lived in because of their present state, a thrill of horror went down my spine. As hon. Members of all parties know, one of my great concerns is the importance of the green belt. I am extremely worried lest we erode a policy that has stood the country in good stead since the war. If 300,000 homes can be improved, that will save incursions into the green belt. For the reason alone, the Minister should think again.
Thirdly, and most important, whatever we do in the House we should never behave as though people were expendable, and we should never excite expectations and then fail to fulfil them. Although I make no accusation of bad faith and would never do so — it was explicitly stated that the scheme was a temporary measure when it was first announced — expectations have nevertheless been excited and will not be fulfilled. My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) referred in his powerful speech to cases in his constituency. There are many in my constituency, too. Indeed, the problem is probably most acute in rural areas.
A number of people have come to me having entered into commitments to buy properties, many of which are of considerable architectural and historic interest. Having purchased properties on the advice of the local planning authority, they suddenly find that there is moratorium on grants, they are financially embarrassed and they do not know whether they will be able to live in the homes that they have bought.
There is a double penalty. First, the grants are to be reduced. Secondly, the overall sum available is likely to be reduced from 1 April. Therefore, I beg my hon. Friend the Minister to think again about this. I hope that he will also do two other things. He made, as one would expect, an eloquent, entertaining, witty and thoughtful speech. He said that in cases of real financial hardship the 90 per cent. grant would continue to be available, but he did not spell out the details. I hope that when he replies he will tell us exactly what that means and what the financial implications are.
I make one final plea. In the course of a rather long harangue, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) made one very good point when he referred to VAT. I have ridden that hobby horse since before VAT was introduced. In the early 1970s I took a deputation to see the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, now my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, begging him to ensure that VAT would not be imposed on repairs to buildings. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister cannot give such an assurance today, as it is the Treasury that we have to fight, but I hope that we can fight shoulder to shoulder against the Treasury, because it is manifest nonsense to encourage demolition rather than improvement and repair.
As a member of the Historic Buildings Council, I am especially concerned about our heritage. Year after year


in our annual report we have made the same plea to Labour and Tory Chancellors alike — that VAT should be removed from repairs to buildings. If that were done, the threat of the proposal under discussion today would not be of such consequence. At the very least we want something. Our housing record is something of which the Government can be unreservedly proud. As this temporary measure has worked extremely well, as it helps combat unemployment and as it give real help, hope and satisfaction to people throughout the land, let us think again and keep it going beyond 31 March.

Mr. Peter Pike: This is an important debate, and I welcome the Opposition's decision to hold it. It is particularly important for constituencies such as my own which contain many old properties that were built before the first world war. All of us who represent constituencies that have older properties in urgent need of improvement are concerned about the Government's decision to reduce the level of improvement grants.
I have no illusions about the fact that the Government stated that the increased grant was temporary. However, we should bear in mind its success. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said, this is one of the best things that the Conservative Government have done.
Since the limit was increased to 90 per cent., applications in Burnley have increased and this year stand at 260 a month. The highest figure before that was in 1975, when there were only 60 applications a month. Given the dramatic increase in applications that has resulted mainly from raising the grant to 90 per cent., there is no question but that the scheme has been successful and ought to be continued.
If we do not continue with grants at this level, in a few years the improvement option will have disappeared and instead we shall face the more expensive option of clearance and rebuild.
It is also important to remember that many people who live in these older properties are in the lower income brackets. Therefore, the difference between 75 per cent. and 90 per cent. grant is a major factor in determining whether they make an application.
Burnley has the dubious honour of being the sixth worst district in England and Wales whose houses do not have an inside toilet or in many cases a bathroom. That is absolutely appalling. A recent publication by the Lancashire county council planning and information department listed three Burnley wards among the 10 worst wards in Lancashire for houses that lack either a toilet or bathroom. The figures show just how deficient those wards are. In Calder ward, 30·13 per cent. of houses lack those amenities. That is the ward in which I live, and the homes that back on to mine have outside toilets. That is deplorable in 1983. In the Daneshouse ward, 22·39 per cent. of homes lack one or more of those amenities, and in Burnley, Wood ward, the figure is 17·38 per cent.
The HIP allocation is also a major factor. At present it is insufficient to meet Burnley's commitment, given the number of grant applications in the pipeline. The council has been forced to stop new applications, although it is processing those that have already been received. It is estimated that these grants will add £500,000 a month to next year's commitment. If, as seems likely, Burnley receives only 80 per cent. of this year's HIP allocation, it

will receive only £3·8 million. The council will soon have committed all the money available, and it is important that the HIP allocation should meet the needs of the community.
We should look carefully at the difference between the financing of council house improvements and improvements in the private sector. Those in the private sector have few local authority revenue implications, whereas council house improvements have major revenue implications that must be borne either by the council tenants or the ratepayers. The Government should again consider changing their subsidy policy, because few councils now benefit from it.
Therefore, the Government should continue the 90 per cent. improvement grant; ensure that councils receive a sufficient HIP allocation to cover the whole of their programmes and cater for the needs of the communities; and look again at the method of subsidising the improvement of council houses.

Mr. John Fraser: It should be noted that barely one voice has been raised in favour of the Government's proposal to cut the 90 per cent. level of improvement and repair grant in April 1984.
The two great domestic issues faced by Members of Parliament are housing and unemployement, and this debate is about one aspect of the Government's gross and scandalous neglect of both problems. In fact, "neglect" is too easy a word to use, because they have launched a deliberate and successful attack on employment. The Minister smiles, but in my constituency, as in most others, unemployment since 1979 has increased almost threefold. The Government have also attacked public housing and brought the number of starts down to a derisory level.
On 3 November, a Department of Environment press release stated:
In the public sector … starts were down 25 per cent. on the previous quarter and 26 per cent. lower than a year ago".
In the last complete year of the Labour Government, there were 107,000 starts in the public sector. That fell to as low as 37,000 in 1981, although it increased to 52,000 in 1982. Nevertheless, that was only half the number of starts in the last complete year of the Labour Government.
It is also interesting to compare employment in the private construction industry. I have with me a list of the top six firms and the comparisons between 1981 and 1982 —[AN HON. MEMBER: "What does that have to do with improvement grants?"] This is not a bad indicator of the relationship between Government policy and employment. Conservative Members will be familiar with some of these names. They are their friends, not their enemies.
In 1981, employment in George Wimpey was 22,000. That went down to 17,000 in 1982. In John Laing, the figure went down from 14,400 to 12,900. In Costain—we have heard that name in the House before — the figure went down from 4,974 to 4,576. Employment in Taylor Woodrow has also dropped, as it has in Bovis, one of whose associates is in the House. The Government even rat on their friends and have robbed their supporters of an important source of work. As I have said, no hon. Member has spoken with any enthusiasm in support of ending the 90 per cent. grant.
The Conservative party is not the party of homes and jobs. It is the demolition contractor of social policy and the architect of despair. I illustrate that by referring to my


own constituency, which is not so different from those of other hon. Members who have spoken. In Lambeth since 1979, 25 per cent. of the people have been living in poverty, 25 per cent. of the males have been unemployed and 25 per cent. are on the housing waiting list hoping for a decent home. The absence of a decent home and the inability to get a job are the two factors which are most likely to undermine a family and to provide an assault on the dignity of the citizens. Like many hon. Members, I have to live week in, week out, with the consequences of this policy. Bad housing is the cause of family breakup and social tension. [Interruption.] I wish the hon. Gentleman, who has not spent much time here during the debate, would shut up.
I should like to quote from the Scarman report; dealing with social matters, Lord Scarman said:
the disorders in Brixton cannot be fully understood unless they are seen in the context of the complex political, social and economic factors to which I have briefly referred. In analysing communal disturbances such as those in Brixton and elsewhere, to ignore he existence of these factors is to put the nation in peril.
Over the past four or five years we have seen a desert of achievement in housing policy, with one single exception. The one beacon of light has been the recognition by the Department of the Environment that much of our housing stock was in poor repair and lacking in basic amenities. The figures have been quoted and are probably well known; 4·3 million houses need repairs costing £2,500 or more, and 1·1 million houses lack basic amenities. Almost all the housing which needs a large amount of repair or lacks basic amenities is in the private sector. Many of the 1·1 million houses which lack basic amenities are in the private rented sector.
Here was an area where it was possible to help the private sector and the owner occupier by providing better amenities; at the same time it meant extra employment, which comes about almost instantly when there is an increase in housing repair grants. It was possible to stimulate training and help local authorities through partnership with the private sector to get improvements made. While the Government may have closed hospitals —I noticed that the hon. Member who used to close hospitals is now cutting down on housing because he has been transferred from the Department of Health and Social Security to the Department of the Environment—while they may have presided over riots and cut down on local authority housing, at least they got one thing right. They chose a programme of increasing employment by means of repair and improvement grants.
Now the Treasury has caught hold of the moles. The reduction in grant from 90 per cent. to 75 per cent. in April of next year will not lead to a proportionate decrease in the amount spent on housing repairs and improvements. Once the reduction in grant takes place there will be a disproportionate reduction in the number of people applying for grants. The cut of £200 million in housing expenditure will mean an almost immediate reduction of 30,000 or 40,000 jobs. The Minister for Housing and Construction is just doing a boarding-up job. The demolition contractor will come to the Dispatch Box tomorrow to deliver the rest of the package, which, we understand from the press today, will be a cut of about £500 million in housing expenditure in addition to what we are debating today.
The Department of the Environment has developed a reputation for at least trying to alleviate some of the worst social conditions. The former Secretary of State took an interest in inner city problems and the Under-Secretary of State, who is a progressive wet, has done what he can for inner city areas. In the battle between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Department of the Environment, it is clear that the dry rots have beaten the rising damps. There is to be a cut in housing expenditure, which will deliver an awful blow to people in the private sector and to tenants and owner occupiers, as well as to the construction industry. I do not think any hon. Member has put those figures in pawn in the debate.
When the Government announced a 90 per cent. grant, for once they got it right. They had the support of local authorities. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out, this was one way of ensuring that there were improvements in the private rented sector. There is very little, if any, incentive for the private landlord to improve tenanted property which is subject to regulated rent. There is little opportunity of public purchase because the Government will not provide the money. The only way to get anything done is to serve a repair notice on a private landlord, but it is no good doing that if it will bankrupt the landlord, because the money will not be there. If the case is to be pressed further, there must be public expenditure involving the local authority. The 90 per cent. grant provided an opportunity to bring about dramatic and speedy improvements in living conditions.
I understand that there are 500,000 grants in the pipeline. There are 4 million houses in need of considerable repair. If there had been no other pressures on the construction industry, it might have been possible within eight to ten years to eradicate poor housing conditions and the lack of basic amenities. The opportunity for doing that is being set aside. The scheme had the support of local authorities, trade unions and the Labour party — branded upon all of us is the overwhelming desire to provide employment and good housing, which are the absolute preconditions for a happy and satisfactory life.
The Government have chosen, not because of any judgment about housing policy but as a consequence of monetary policies, to cut down on the highly successful scheme for which we have been prepared to give them all credit. The reduction in grant will harm particularly inner city areas. In Lambeth there are about 48,000 private homes, of which half are in poor condition. I see very little prospect of those houses, many in the private rented sector, being improved once this policy is pushed through. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has told us about Liverpool. There are 7,000 grants in the pipeline there, many of them for properties in housing action areas.
The reduction in grant will be a tragedy for the building industry, for employment generally and for those who live in poor conditions. We have not heard from the Minister a single word of justification for the policy, but simply one or two diversionary tactics. He must answer the question put to him by the hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) and other hon. Members, about whether applications submitted before March 1984 will be honoured.
In a desert of housing cuts, cuts in employment, cuts in social services and industrial dereliction, there was one beacon of light, the undoubted generosity and compassion


of the Government's policy on housing improvement and repair grants. The only advice that the Minister can offer to us is that which Macbeth gave:
Out, out, brief candle!
We believe in generosity and compassion in housing. In that we have the support of the country and, I believe, the secret as well as overt support of many hon. Members on the Conservative Benches. I hope some Conservative Members will have the guts to vote for the motion.

The Under-Secretary of State for he Environment (Sir George Young): I shall try to deal with the points that have been raised in the debate, but if I do not have time to deal with all the individual points, I shall write to the Members concerned.
The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) mentioned the construction industry. No one would deny that it has suffered through the recession, but the picture which the hon. Member gave is incomplete, because the output figures for 1982 were up on 1981 and for the first six months of 1983 they are up by 3·5 per cent. on those for the same period of 1982. On new orders, the picture is even better. For the first eight months of 1983 they are 16 per cent. up on 1982. I hope the hon. Member draws the same encouragement that I draw from those figures.
If one thinks through the consequences for the construction industry of improvement grant policy it is worth remembering that for every £1 which local authorities contribute to repair and improvement the individual puts in £30. Of far greater importance to the construction industry is the impact that our overall policies are having on the £30 rather than the £1 put in by the public sector. Our success in bringing down interest and mortgage rates and ensuring that funds are available, and the fact that earnings are still keeping ahead of prices, have meant that more people have the resources to keep their homes in good condition. The construction industry is more interested in securing a long-term future, based on a sound economy, than in pressing for the continuation of short-term initiatives to help them as they move out of the recession.
My Department has implemented the recommendations made by Lord Scarman. The figures for the urban programme show that the Government have put their money where their mouth is. We have increased the urban programme from £165 million in 1979–80, which is the figure that we inherited from the Labour Government, to £348 million in 1983–84.
The hon. Member for Norwood gave the figures for public housing starts, but conveniently omitted the figures for private sector starts. In 1983 those are likely to exceed 165,000. That is the highest level since 1973, and reflects growing consumer confidence in the country's economic recovery. The building societies have had excellent inflows of savings since July, with October's inflow at a record £1,010 million. Those substantial funds are ample to meet current mortgage demands and reduce mortgage queues.
The right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) sought to excuse the poor performance of the Labour Government by implying that they had spent more on local authority improvements. Sadly, statistics do not support his case. Between 1978–79 and 1982–83 the amount of money local authorities spent on improving their stock rose from £479 million—the figure that we inherited—

to £934 million in 1982–83. So the expansion in home improvement grants has not been at the expense of improvements in local authority stock.
It is not for me to pass comment on the performance of Brent council. However, I read in the newspapers that one Brent councillor has decided that her constituents would be better served if she supported Tory councillors. I applaud her decision and her courage.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland heard what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) said about the position in Scotland.
I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) that the 90 per cent. grant for hardship cases will continue. Local authorities have the discretion to define hardship. The 90 per cent. figure will apply for those in hardship in all areas, and will not be restricted — as it was under the Labour Government—to those who live in housing action areas.
My hon. Friend raised a point about rehabilitaion. We are in favour of that where it is economically practicable. There will be some role for demolition, but there is no question of returning to the major clearances of the 1960s and early 1970s. That is not needed, and it is socially costly.
There have been constructive comments from both sides of the House about improving the grant system. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) touched on that matter. The present system is legally and administratively complex, and it is not always targeted towards obtaining the best value for money. We are studying the matter, and will discuss the report of a joint working party of local authority associations and my Department at the housing consultative council next week.
I hope that we all agree that the policy of improvement grants and the publicity surrounding them have had the beneficial long-term effect of bringing home to owners of buildings the importance of keeping their properties in good repair. It has compelled local authorities to reorder their priorities and allocate a higher place to the conservation, maintenance and improvement of existing stock. I make no apology for those consequences.
A number of hon. Members have expressed concern about next year. I cannot anticipate the Chancelllor of the Exchequer's statement tomorrow about the Government's public expenditure plans, but I can see no reason why English authorities should not find it possible next year to match the £430 million that they spent on grants this year — which was a record. The resources that we shall make available to local authorities will allow them to tackle defective dwellings in their stock that need immediate attention. There is no reason why, at the same time, they should not maintain a significant programme of home improvement grants.
The real problem appears to be uncertainty — until local authorities know their allocations for next year they are reluctant to commit themselves. That is why we hope to announce the HIP allocations for individual authorities before the end of the month. We have told them that the minimum provision will be at least 80 per cent. of their allocation for this year. Given that assurance, and the clear terms in which the temporary nature of the 90 per cent. grant was described by the Chancellor, I do not think that any authority can claim to have been misled. Indeed, one


could argue that the reduction from 90 per cent. to 75 per cent. helps local authorities, because for any given volume of improvement work, the cost to them is slightly reduced.
The Government vigorously deny allegations of misleading the public. All publicity from my Department has made it clear that, where applicable, the grants are at the discretion of the local authority. The Labour party criticises us for our lack of generosity when we are spending seven times what it spent on improvement grants. The public will realise the shortage of constructive criticism and new ideas within the Labour party. We have all read in the press how the Labour party is abandoning its dogmatic approach to housing, which cost so much support at the general election. But we saw little sign of that new approach today.
If we have not persuaded the Labour party in the House to change its policy on housing, there are welcome signs outside. On September 27 the Scunthorpe Evening Telegraph carried the headline:
Homes sale critic to buy house.
The article stated:
A Labour Party chairman on Scunthorpe Borough Council, who has been one of the severest critics of the Government's right to buy Act which allows council tenants up to 50 per cent. discount on the price of their homes, has applied to buy his council house… Councillor Vessey said in a prepared statement last night: 'After much heart searching I have decided that it is right for me to purchase my council house in Scunthorpe.'
Of course it is right for him to do that. Yet when we seek to extend those rights we meet opposition from the Labour party, which simply does not understand how out of touch it is with public opinion.
The policy on the right to buy has increased the resources available to local authorities. Between April 1979 and June 1983 total receipts from council house sales were £2·1 billion. The average improvement grant is about £3,000. Therefore, in principle, about 700,000 improvement grants could be financed by the implementation of our right-to-buy policy. Each sale of a council house is the equivalent of two and a half improvement grants. Not only does our policy give independence to the home buyer: it helps to finance the improvement of the housing stock as a whole.
It is difficult to find a less promising subject than improvement grants for the Labour party to choose for its attack on the Government. It is like winning the toss and putting the other side in to bat on a plum wicket. Whatever objective measurement we choose, the only conclusion is that the Government are half way around the course while the Labour party is still in the starting trap, facing the wrong way.
The number of home improvement grants in 1978–79 was 60,000, and this year it is likely to be 200,000. In 1978–79 grants totalled £90 million; this year they will total £650 million. In each constituency about £70,000 was spent in 1978–79; this year it will be £1 million. If we asked thousands of people who live in poor conditions which party has benefited them most in their improvement policy, they will quickly reach the conclusion that it is the Conservative party.
For every grant given in 1978–79, three grants are being given this year. We have made the policy more flexible and better attuned to priority needs. The Labour party restricted the 90 per cent. rate to those in hardship in housing action

areas. We have removed that restriction. The Labour party denied grants to disabled occupants whose property was above the rateable value limit, and we have removed that restriction. The improvement grant regime for next year, so fiercely criticised by Opposition Members, will still be far more generous than the regime that we inherited from the Labour Government. The Opposition's motion is sheer hypocrisy, and I invite the House to support the amendment.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 196, Noes 342.

Division No. 69]
[7.00 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Fatchett, Derek


Alton, David
Faulds, Andrew


Anderson, Donald
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Ashdown, Paddy
Fisher, Mark


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Flannery, Martin


Ashton, Joe
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Forrester, John


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Foster, Derek


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Foulkes, George


Barron, Kevin
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Beith, A. J.
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bell, Stuart
Golding, John


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Gould, Bryan


Bermingham, Gerald
Gourlay, Harry


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Blair, Anthony
Hardy, Peter


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Harman, Ms Harriet


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Heffer, Eric S.


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Bruce, Malcolm
Home Robertson, John


Caborn, Richard
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Howells, Geraint


Campbell, Ian
Hoyle, Douglas


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cartwright, John
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Coleman, Donald
Janner, Hon Greville


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Conlan, Bernard
John, Brynmor


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Corbett, Robin
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kennedy, Charles


Cowans, Harry
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Craigen, J. M.
Kirkwood, Archibald


Crowther, Stan
Leadbitter, Ted


Cunningham, Dr John
Leighton, Ronald


Dalyell, Tam
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Litherland, Robert


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Deakins, Eric
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dewar, Donald
Loyden, Edward


Dixon, Donald
McCartney, Hugh


Dobson, Frank
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Dormand, Jack
McGuire, Michael


Douglas, Dick
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Dubs, Alfred
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
McTaggart, Robert


Eadie, Alex
McWilliam, John


Eastham, Ken
Madden, Max


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n SE)
Marek, Dr John


Evans, Ioan (Cynon Valley)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Martin, Michael


Ewing, Harry
Mason, Rt Hon Roy






Maxton, John
Ryman, John


Maynard, Miss Joan
Sedgemore, Brian


Meacher, Michael
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Meadowcroft, Michael
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Michie, William
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Mikardo, Ian
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Skinner, Dennis


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Nellist, David
Snape, Peter


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Spearing, Nigel


O'Brien, William
Steel, Rt Hon David


O'Neill, Martin
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Stokes, John


Paisley, Rev Ian
Strang, Gavin


Park, George
Straw, Jack


Parry, Robert
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Patchett, Terry
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Pavitt, Laurie
Tinn, James


Pendry, Tom
Torney, Tom


Penhaligon, David
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Pike, Peter
Wainwright, R.


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Wallace, James


Prescott, John
Ward, John


Radice, Giles
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Randall, Stuart
Wareing, Robert


Redmond, M.
Welsh, Michael


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
White, James


Richardson, Ms Jo
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Winnick, David


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Woodall, Alec


Robertson, George
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Rooker, J. W.



Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Rowlands, Ted
Mr. Frank Haynes.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Aitken, Jonathan
Buck, Sir Antony


Alexander, Richard
Budgen, Nick


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bulmer, Esmond


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Burt, Alistair


Amess, David
Butcher, John


Ancram, Michael
Butler, Hon Adam


Arnold, Tom
Butterfill, John


Ashby, David
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Aspinwall, Jack
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Chapman, Sydney


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Chope, Christopher


Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)
Churchill, W. S.


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Baldry, Anthony
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Batiste, Spencer
Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Clegg, Sir Walter


Bellingham, Henry
Cockeram, Eric


Bendall, Vivian
Colvin, Michael


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Conway, Derek


Benyon, William
Coombs, Simon


Berry, Sir Anthony
Cope, John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cormack, Patrick


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Corrie, John


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Couchman, James


Body, Richard
Critchley, Julian


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Crouch, David


Bottomley, Peter
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dicks, T.


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Dorrell, Stephen


Braine, Sir Bernard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Dunn, Robert


Brooke, Hon Peter
Durant, Tony


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Dykes, Hugh


Browne, John
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Bruinvels, Peter
Eggar, Tim


Bryan, Sir Paul
Emery, Sir Peter





Evennett, David
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Eyre, Reginald
Key, Robert


Fairbairn, Nicholas
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Fallon, Michael
King, Rt Hon Tom


Farr, John
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Favell, Anthony
Knowles, Michael


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Knox, David


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lamont, Norman


Fletcher, Alexander
Lang, Ian


Fookes, Miss Janet
Latham, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Lawler, Geoffrey


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fox, Marcus
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Franks, Cecil
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Lightbown, David


Freeman, Roger
Lilley, Peter


Fry, Peter
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Galley, Roy
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Lord, Michael


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Lyell, Nicholas


Garel-Jones, Tristan
McCrindle, Robert


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Glyn, Dr Alan
MacGregor, John


Goodhart, Sir Philip
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Goodlad, Alastair
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Gorst, John
Maclean, David John.


Gow, Ian
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Gower, Sir Raymond
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Grant, Sir Anthony
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Gregory, Conal
McQuarrie, Albert


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Madel, David


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Major, John


Grist, Ian
Malins, Humfrey


Grylls, Michael
Malone, Gerald


Gummer, John Selwyn
Maples, John


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Marland, Paul


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Marlow, Antony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Hannam, John
Mates, Michael


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Haselhurst, Alan
Mellor, David


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Merchant, Piers


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hawksley, Warren
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Hayes, J.
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Hayhoe, Barney
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Hayward, Robert
Miscampbell, Norman


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Heddle, John
Moate, Roger


Henderson, Barry
Monro, Sir Hector


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Montgomery, Fergus


Hickmet, Richard
Moore, John


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Hind, Kenneth
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hirst, Michael
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Moynihan, Hon C.


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Mudd, David


Holt, Richard
Murphy, Christopher


Hooson, Tom
Neale, Gerrard


Hordern, Peter
Needham, Richard


Howard, Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Neubert, Michael


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Newton, Tony


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Nicholls, Patrick


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Norris, Steven


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Onslow, Cranley


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Ottaway, Richard


Hunter, Andrew
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Irving, Charles
Patten, John (Oxford)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Pattie, Geoffrey


Jessel, Toby
Pawsey, James


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Pink, R. Bonner


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Pollock, Alexander


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Porter, Barry






Powell, William (Corby)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Powley, John
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Stokes, John


Price, Sir David
Stradling Thomas, J.


Prior, Rt Hon James
Sumberg, David


Proctor, K. Harvey
Tapsell, Peter


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Raffan, Keith
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Rathbone, Tim
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Renton, Tim
Terlezki, Stefan


Rhodes James, Robert
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Rifkind, Malcolm
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Thornton, Malcolm


Roe, Mrs Marion
Thurnham, Peter


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rost, Peter
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Rowe, Andrew
Tracey, Richard


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Trippier, David


Ryder, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Viggers, Peter


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Waddington, David


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Scott, Nicholas
Waldegrave, Hon William


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Walden, George


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wall, Sir Patrick


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Waller, Gary


Shersby, Michael
Walters, Dennis


Silvester, Fred
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Sims, Roger
Warren, Kenneth


Skeet, T. H. H.
Watts, John


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Whitney, Raymond


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wiggin, Jerry


Speed, Keith
Wilkinson, John


Speller, Tony
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Spence, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Spencer, D.
Wolfson, Mark


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wood, Timothy


Squire, Robin
Woodcock, Michael


Stanbrook, Ivor
Yeo, Tim


Stanley, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Steen, Anthony
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stern, Michael



Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Tellers for the Noes:


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Mr. Carol Mather and


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Mr. Robert Boscawen.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the priority given by the Government to the promotion of home ownership and the repair and improvement of the housing stock through repair and improvement grants and the introduction of the Tenants' Charter and the entitlement of local authority tenants to improvement grants; and believes that these measures are of real benefit both to individual householders and to the construction industry.

Milk

Mr. Robert Hughes: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Milk-based Drinks (Hygiene and Heat Treatment) Regulations 1983 (S.I., 1983, No. 1508), the Milk and Dairies (Heat Treatment of Cream) Regulations 1983 (S.1., 1983, No. 1509), the Milk (Special Designation) (Amendment) Regulations 1983 (S.I., 1983, No. 1510), and the Milk and Dairies (Semi-skimmed and Skimmed Milk) (Heat Treatment and Labelling) (Amendment) Regulations 1983 (S.1., 1983, No. 1511), dated 18th October 1983, the Importation of Milk Regulations 1983 (S.I., 1983, No. 1563), dated 24th October 1983, the Milk-based Drinks (Scotland) Regulations 1983 (S.I., 1983, No. 1514), the Cream (Heat Treatment) (Scotland) Regulations 1983 (S.I., 1983, No. 1515), the Milk and Dairies (Semi-skimmed and Skimmed Milk) (Heat Treatment and Labelling) (Scotland) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1983 (S.I., 1983, No. 1526) and the Milk (Special Designations) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Order 1983 (S.I., 1983, No. 1527), dated 17th October 1983, and the Importation of Milk (Scotland) Regulations 1983 (S.I., 1983, No. 1545), dated 21st October 1983, copies of which were laid before this House on 26th October, be annulled.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also the second motion:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Importation of Milk Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1983 (S.R.(N.I.), 1983 No. 338) ought to be revoked.

Mr. Hughes: It might be for the convenience of the House if I describe the background to the regulations relating to the conditions under which UHT milk, sterilised milk and frozen pasteurised cream may be imported. There can be no doubt that these regulations have caused widespread concern. I have received letters and representations from organisations in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The representations have come from the Dairy Trade Federation, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, the Transport and General Workers Union, the milk marketing boards, and the National Farmers Union. In addition, I have had representations from individual consumers. They have all expressed worry, even consternation, at the impact that these imports may have on every section of the dairy economy.
It is well understood that our system of doorstep delivery of milk is unique. I concede that uniqueness is not by itself a sufficient criterion for maintaining a system, but it is not disputed by anyone that the doorstep delivery provides a welcome and satisfactory service to the consumer. Isolation is feared by many, especially women alone at home and elderly people, and there is no doubt that the milkman is a valuable contact for them and for others.
If the doorstep delivery system were to be disrupted, that could put many jobs at risk. About 50,000 people work full-time in milk distribution. About 15,000 people are employed in liquid milk processing and packaging and about 15,000 are involved in the road haulage industry, glass manufacturing and electrical vehicle construction. I accept that the destruction of the system will not happen at once, but the House should be under no illusion that the damage to doorstep deliveries will have serious consequences and will affect milk consumption. We can tell that from the experience in the Netherlands. Since the late 1960s, deliveries have fallen from 90 per cent. to


under 25 per cent., and consumption has fallen by 25 per cent. It is clear that no section of the community will remain unaffected.
It is also clear from the regulations that the effects on the consumer must be taken into account and that we must have regard to the quality, hygiene and health standards. It is acknowledged by everyone with any knowledge of our dairy industry that we have the highest and the best standards of milk production, processing, packaging and delivery. Inspections take place at all stages by the most competent officers. It is essential that this thorough inspection is continued as far as possible for imported milk.
The regulations refer to the imports through authorised places of entry. It is fortunate that I have been given a copy of the London Gazette, published today, which answers some of the questions that I was asking, in particular the one on how many places of entry there will be, though it only partially answers it. According to the London Gazette, there will be 17 places of entry. I do not know how many places of entry there will be in Scotland, because that information will be published separately in Edinburgh. Perhaps when he replies to the debate the Minister will say how many places of entry he has designated there.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jopling): It may help the hon. Gentleman to know now that the number in Scotland will be two.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that information. I wish that the answer was two for England and Wales as well. An imperative in the Minister's decision should have been to keep the number of places of entry to the absolute minimum. I say, not in any obstructive way, that we must lessen the administrative problems of inspection. We must ensure a high frequency of sampling and strict testing, and in my opinion 17 is far too many.
It is vital that adequate resources are made available at Ministry and port health authority level to make sure that we have a rigorous, though fair, form of monitoring for milk imports, and it will remain essential for many years to come that the procedures continue to be sustained.
What analysis has the Minister made of the number of personnel who will he required? What will the cost be? May we have a guarantee that the cost will be fully provided for? What criteria will be laid down for the primary inspection? Paragraph 2 of schedule 2 to Statutory Instrument No. 1563 is curious, because it says:
(1) Within a reasonable time after the arrival of a consignment of imported milk at a designated place an authorised officer shall carry out a primary examination (that is to say such examination of the consignment of imported milk as may be carried out without opening any closed container in which it is to be supplied to the ultimate consumer or to a catering establishment, and an examination of any document accompanying that consignment).
(2) if upon that primary examination the authorised officer decides that any of the consignments of imported milk has been imported in breach of these regulations or that human health would be protected if that consignment were not unconditionally authorised to be removed, he shall give notice to the importer in writing that the consignment must not be removed from the designated place for any purpose other than its exportation.
How will that work? How will the authorised officer form a judgment on the health standards and hygiene of the milk without opening any container? Will he have an X-ray machine? That will not tell him much. How can he possibly do it without taking a sample?
We now know, again courtesy of the London Gazette, what the form of certification will be; I shall not read that document into the record and delay the House unnecessarily, but it worries me to the extent that. given that the primary examination must be done without opening containers, it seems that the form of certification will be taken on its face value. If it is signed, that will be that. How on earth, with such a full certificate being provided, will the authorised officer be able to make any checks? Will there be any examination on the other side of the Channel or of the Irish Sea?
The more one looks at the regulations, the more it becomes clear that the Government should have had a debate when they were in draft, so that they could have had the benefit of the advice of the House on these and other matters before proceeding. It has been, to put it mildly, rather naughty of the Government on an issue as important as this to make us discuss it at such a late stage in the proceedings.
I come to the curious inclusion of sterilised milk and frozen pasteurised cream in the importation regulations. The Government are going beyond what is strictly necessary under the European Court decision of February of this year. I do not think that that can be denied. When the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—now the Secretary of State for Energy — made his statement on 9 February, he repeated a number of times that the decision referred only to UHT milk. For example, he said:
During the course of the Council, as the House knows, the European Court of Justice issued its judgment in the case related to United Kingdom imports of ultra-heat treated milk As I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) yesterday, the judgment states that the United Kingdom would be entitled to lay down the objective conditions which it considers ought to be observed as regards the quality of milk before treatment and as regards the method of treating and packing UHT milk of whatever origin offered for sale in its territory. The Government will study the judgment in detail and will as soon as possible take the steps necessary to comply with it. Our aim will be to provide for the import of UHT milk from other member states subject to its satisfying the same health and hygiene requirements on which, in the interests of public health, we insist for the production and processing of our own milk". —[Official Report, 9 February 1983, Vol. 36, c. 1003.]
Clearly, the Minister was saying that the judgment referred only to UHT milk.
That assurance was repeated and underlined when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, spoke in reply to the Second Reading debate on the Importation of Milk Bill on 10 May of this year. She said when referring to the regulations which would finally be produced under the Bill:
However, their main effect will be to provide for the importation of UHT milk and cream and flavoured milk from member states subject to these products satisfying the same health and hygiene requirements".
The emphasis was again on UHT milk. When replying to that debate the hon. Lady said:
I should like to repeat that the judgment applies only to UHT milk, which tastes different from the fresh milk to which we are accustomed in this country, of which, I believe, we are the largest consumer in the Community.
The hon. Lady went on to point out that UHT milk accounted for
such a small share—1 per cent.—of the United Kingdom market". — [Official Report, 10 May 1983, Vol. 42, c. 743–59.]
Once again the emphasis was on UHT milk only.
It is true that the minds of many hon. Members on that day were engaged on other matters, particularly the forthcoming general election, though my mind was otherwise engaged. I was on my way to Gothenburg to see Aberdeen play Real Madrid in the European Cup Winners Cup—and win—but that is by the way.
Hon. Members who were present on that day—for example, my hon. Friends the Members for the City of Durham (Mr. Hughes) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) and others—pressed the hon. Lady to say how far the Bill was intended to go. The hon. Member who then represented Thirsk and Malton, now called Ryedale (Mr. Spence)—who is not in his place, though I see that the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) is with us, and was present that day—also pressed strongly to make sure that doorstep deliveries would be protected.
There is no doubt that the Minister's response on that occasion was designed to assuage the fears of hon. Members. Indeed, had the House had any idea that the measure would be used for other than the importation of UHT milk it would never have been allowed through at that late stage of the Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for the City of Durham complained that the Bill was being put through virtually on the nod.
I accept without reservation that the Minister did not seek on that occasion to mislead the House. It is clear, therefore, that there has been a significant change of policy to include sterilised milk and frozen cream. It is serious that this change of policy has never been reported to the House of Commons. I should have thought that there would have been a proper oral statement setting the record straight. Surely the Minister owed it to his Parliamentary Secretary to make one and so exonerate her of any duplicity and assert her innocence in the matter.
One must ask time and again why the Government have gone so far. We have had no logical explanation, and today we are governed by the rules of order in that I open the debate and the Minister replies. In view of all that has been said, we are left with the impression that the right hon. Gentleman has capitulated even before being tested in the defence of British interests.
It has always been thought that it was Government policy to defend to the limit the doorstep delivery of milk, at the same time remaining consistent with our obligations under the treaty of Rome and the European Court decision. That was clearly in the mind of the Parliamentary Secretary when she promised the widest possible consultation, while not accepting—I regret that she did not accept—the statutory right of consultation that was pressed on her.
During the consultation process that has taken place since 10 June, the Minister has been pressed to write into the regulations a period of transition of, say, three to five years, to allow some adjustment and to give the industry time to meet any new competitive challenge that might arise. I accept that the industry is competitive at present. There is strong evidence to suggest that a transition period would have been acceptable to the Commission, but the initiative for the transition period had to come from the Government. They had to lodge a formal request with the Commission for a transition period. I regret that that was not done, and I hope that it is possible, even now, to do that.
I should like to ask the Minister some questions about frozen pasteurised cream. Can he give an absolute assurance that there will be no risk to public health from imports? If he believes that there is a public health risk from imported pasteurised milk, how can pasteurised cream not represent the same health hazard? I do not see the distinction, or how the right hon. Gentleman makes it. Is it not the case that freezing has no bactericidal effect; in other words, that it does not kill the bacteria?
I fully accept and understand that the European Court's judgment made it quite clear that we could not use health regulations in a spurious way that would amount to, as article 36 of the treaty states,
a disguised restriction on trade between member states"?
It is difficult to do so, but, nevertheless, we probably have to accept that decision. However, I have before me the Minister's press statement dated 26 October 1983. There is no number on it, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows which one it is. It is headed, "Michael Jopling Speaks About The Challenges Facing The Dairy Industry" and concerns a speech made at the golden jubilee lunch of the Dairy Trade Federation.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It was a very good lunch.

Mr. Hughes: I was not lucky enough to attend the lunch. Some people might say that I was lucky to miss the Minister's speech. The right hon. Gentleman said:
Although we must comply with the law we can also avail ourselves of certain helpful aspects of the judgment. In particular, the judgment recognises that we are entitled to lay down objective conditions as regards the quality of milk before treatment and as regards the methods of treating and packing UHT milk offered for sale in the United Kingdom. We have, of course, invoked these references in the course of the intensive discussions which have taken place with the Commission and Member States since February.
The Minister went on to say that the regime would provide for comprehensive certification for imports, and so on. He made great play of how he understood the importance of doorstep deliveries. He was, of course, defending very high standards.
I do not want to indulge in scaremonger tactics, but we need some assurances about a point that has been raised with me by, for example, the Milk Marketing Board. In a letter dated 14 February it said:
The industry has recently been involved in a review of the regulations relating to UHT cream and milk based drinks and in the course of this review the Ministry of Agriculture have insisted that henceforth it will be necessary to apply a treatment of 140C for 2 seconds to render these UHT products safe against the dangerous organism chlostridium botulinum.
Some hon. Members may think it easier to say "CB", but I always think of a radio when I hear those initials.
The letter continues:
This requirement is based on evidence from the Department of Health and Social Security and because of its concern for the health of its customers the industry has accepted this tighter UHT specification for cream and milk based drinks. Having been made aware of the danger by the DHSS the industry has strongly argued that UHT milk both domestically treated and treated elsewhere in Europe prior to import must be treated to the same level of 140C for two seconds. It is clearly absurd that one level is adequate for white milk when a tighter level is required for, for example, flavoured milk.
The regulations certainly say that UHT milk-based drinks and cream are to be treated at 140 deg C for two seconds, yet the temperature for UHT milk is 132·2 deg C for a minimum of one second. That is clearly


inconsistent. As the Milk Marketing Board points out, it is below the guidelines recommended to eliminate that highly dangerous organism "CB".
In practice, however, our dairies use the higher temperature. It is extraordinary that the Minister should accept the lower levels in the import regulations. He should have been consistent, in the interest of health. There is also growing concern about the detection of antibiotics in milk in Ireland. I shall not cite the instances, as I am sure the Minister is aware of the articles that appeared in The Irish Times on 3 February and in the Connacht Tribune on 10 June 1983.
I think that UHT could best be described as unpalatable, hideous and tasteless. It could be argued that it will not take much of the market. At present it has only 1 per cent. of the market, so there is not much to worry about. However, sterilised milk—which can be imported under the regulations—already takes more than 6 per cent. of the market, and in some parts of the country the figure is as high as 20 and 25 per cent. Therefore, there is clearly a threat.

Mr. Robin Corbett: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the greater midlands area sterilised supplies account for 36 per cent. of daily doorstep deliveries? The national figure is quite bogus, because the balance between pasteurised and sterilised products will vary from region to region. The biggest threat to daily doorstep deliveries will come from those areas with high sales of sterilised products.

Mr. Hughes: I entirely accept that. One of the difficulties of using averages is that they can be misleading. However, if I had cited the west midlands and the figure of 36 per cent., I might have been accused of over-dramatising things.
Once we go that far, things will not end there. The judgment of the European Court and the other pressures will mean that very soon there will be pressure for the importation of pasteurised milk. What will the Government do then? What excuse will they give?
At present, the economics of doorstep deliveries are finely balanced. It will not necessarily require a flood of imports to distort, change and disturb the industry's pattern. What will the Government do to monitor the effect of imports? Before things go any further, will the Minister — if he is successful in defeating our prayer — immediately offer to hold discussions with all those concerned in the dairy trade, the trade unions and the distributors and so on, so that he is in a position to act swiftly if there is any evidence of a challenge to doorstep deliveries?

Mr. Peter Hardy: Will my hon. Friend invite the Minister to tell us whether, as he suggested, the Government have gone rather further than they needed to? Would the Minister care to tell the House whether the Government could have taken steps to ensure that we would not receive cream from countries where foot and mouth disease was endemic? It would have been reasonable to make that stipulation, given this country's record of keeping itself generally free from disease.

Mr. Hughes: I accept that point, and I am glad that may hon. Friend asked that question. There are many questions that I should like to ask, but time does not permit me to do so. However, I hope that my hon. Friend receives

an answer, because at this stage we should not still be asking why the Minister did that. Given the importance of the issue, he should have told us without being asked.
The decision to take us to the European Court shows us something about the Commission's bureaucracy that must be the despair of those remaining few who believe wholeheartedly in the EEC. The Commission cannot leave well alone. We have a unique system of doorstep delivery, which is not doing anyone any harm. However, it is clear that the consequences of change for us were disregarded. It was impossible for the Commission to do other than apply the grey uniformity which goes under the euphemism of harmonisation.
Conservative Members have an important responsibility to defend the rights of the House and consumers. The Government's response, by going further in these regulations than compelled to by the court decision, displays an accelerating trend in their behaviour to the EC that is too prevalent. The Government have indulged in strong rhetoric in the defence of British interests, but they are woefully inadequate when action is required to defend those interests. The interests of the people, producers and distributors would be served best by the rejection of these regulations, and I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to join us in the Division Lobby.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jopling): On behalf of the House I express my warm good wishes to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) on becoming the Opposition spokesman on agriculture, fisheries and food. — [Ho N. MEMBERS: "Why is he not in the Shadow Cabinet?"] That is a matter for the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) who sits grinning. No doubt, as a good party manager. he will prevail upon his Back Benchers to ensure that the hon. Gentleman obtains more votes next year.
We are sad that the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) is not well. He previously filled the role now being played by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be kind enough to pass on to the hon. Member for Paisley, South the good wishes of the House.
These new regulations, which were laid before the House a few weeks ago, are essential to enable the United Kingdom to comply with Community law and to provide effective public health safeguards on imports for the British consumer. The European Court of Justice decided in a judgment in February this year that the United Kingdom's present regulations, which have the effect of preventing imports of UHT milk, are inconsistent with our obligations under articles 30 and 36 of the treaty of Rome and are therefore contrary to Community law.
In the light of this ruling, the Government have no option but to comply with the law, and my predecessor announced this intention immediately after the judgment. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North say—I think it was a responsible remark—that he agrees that the Government of the day must obey the law of the land.

Ms. Harriet Harman: The Government were sufficiently keen to make a mockery of the European Court's rulings on our equality legislation when they introduced an order on equal pay for work of equal value, which did nothing to implement the European Court's


judgment. May we look to the Government on this important issue similarly to undermine the European Court's judgment—this time in the national interest?

Mr. Jopling: I have sufficient responsibilities under my agriculture, fisheries and food portfolio without becoming involved in that matter. The hon. Lady must discuss it on one of the many occasions that I am sure the House will provide to debate women's lib. Many matters will be raised tonight, and I hope that we can keep away from that.
In the light of the European Court's ruling, the Government have no option but to comply with the law. If we fail to do so, we shall inevitably expose ourselves to the possibility of further proceedings in the European Court. The House should note that we should be vulnerable also to proceedings in our domestic courts. I acknowledge the concern of hon. Members about the economic consequences of complying with the judgment and the detail of our regulations. I hope in due course to deal with all of those points.
I trust that no hon. Member will dispute the general principle that Ministers and their officials should comply with the law of the land. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North has set the tone. There have been suggestions by hon. Members, including the hon. Gentleman, that we should comply with the law, but only slowly or partially. That would not be a tenable position, and to adopt it would prompt an immediate further challenge in the courts. There is nothing in the judgment or in articles 30 and 36 of the treaty of Rome to suggest that a gradual or partial compliance with these obligations is sufficient. There is no such principle in our law or that of the Community, nor is there any evidence that the European Court, the Commission as a whole, any other member state or individual trader would have acquiesced in such an arrangement.
I have good reason to doubt whether the Commission would have accepted a further delay beyond the nine or so months since the Court judgment and our compliance with that judgment.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is coming to the point, which is not that we should not comply in full with the law on UHT milk, but why he went further than necessary and why he has consistently exercised his judgment only on UHT milk.

Mr. Jopling: That is a major part of the debate, and I shall come to it a little later.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is widespread feeling among organisations dealing with the welfare of the elderly that these regulations, if implemented, could be the beginning of the end for milk deliveries to their homes? The implications would be serious for our retired people.

Mr. Jopling: We are all aware of my hon. Friend's great interest in matters affecting the elderly. I shall deal with that point at the end of my speech when I discuss the importance of the doorstep delivery.
We must comply with the judgment, but that does not mean that there has to be a free-for-all. On the contrary, although the judgment requires us to admit imports, it acknowledges that in the interest of public health the

United Kingdom can lay down objective conditions on the quality of milk before heat treatment and on the methods of treating and packing imported milk. The judgment acknowedges also that we can operate a system of certification and that we can sample and test imports to ensure that our requirements for the protection of public health are met. These observations by the court are significant, and they are fully reflected in the rigorous import regime that will be established by these regulations to protect public health.
The general effect of the regulations is to ensure that imports will be subjected to requirements equivalent to the stringent health and hygiene safeguards that we apply to our milk production. I hope that that answers the question of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North. The regulations provide that imports must be accompanied by a prescribed certificate properly completed. The form of the certificate is being published today, as the hon. Gentleman said, in the London Gazette. 
For public health purposes, the importer will be required to provide a range of factual information about each consignment and to give guarantees relating, first, to the condition of the milk before processing; secondly, to the heat treatment process; and thirdly, to the end product. The regulations lay down detailed rules for the examination of imports at the ports.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North asked whether the port health authorities could examine the milk. I refer him to statutory instrument No. 1563, page 6, schedule 2 where paragraph 3 gives a great many powers. It provides:
For the purposes of further examination under this paragraph an authorised officer may, to such extent as is reasonable and within such time as is reasonable
do many things, including taking, testing and analysing samples of imported milk and so on. That demonstrates that the inspecting officer at the port has the right not just to inspect products externally but also to sample and open them.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Will the Minister give the House an unequivocal undertaking that no lower standards of hygiene are required in the farm dairy on the continent than are required from our dairymen?

Mr. Jopling: We do not have jurisdiction over farms within the Community ——

Mr. Geraint Howells: They never wash their hands.

Mr. Jopling: —any more than we would allow an overseas Government to lay down regulations for our farms.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The Government do allow that because the EC is making regulations.

Mr. John Home Robertson: rose——

Mr. Jopling: No, I must proceed. In England and Wales it will be the responsibility——

Mr. Home Robertson: rose——

Mr. Jopling: No, I have given way a great deal already and I must proceed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. It is clear that the Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Jopling: In England and Wales it will be the responsibility of the port health authorities, who are already responsible for monitoring the safety of other imported foodstuffs, to carry out the examination. They have the experienced staff and the necessary infrastructure to ensure that the job is done thoroughly and that public health is fully protected. The port authorities will work closely with my Department and will take samples——

Mr. Home Robertson: rose——

Mr. Jopling: —for testing in laboratories belonging to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and that will provide a safeguard.

Mr. Home Robertson: rose——

Mr. Jopling: I have given way a great deal. I must proceed. To achieve uniformity of standards and the necessary co-ordination, it is necessary to restrict trade to ports which have the facilities and expertise necessary to provide adequate safeguards in this important health function.
England and Wales has 144 ports, and we have designated 17 of them, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North said. They are the ports which are already designated to handle meat. All those ports have great experience in the public health aspects of the meat trade. It is logical that milk should be added.
My right hon. Friends are designating two ports in Scotland and three entry points in Northern Ireland, details of which will be published in the appropriate Gazettes.

Rev. Ian Paisley: rose——

Mr. Jopling: I must proceed. The regulations are concerned solely with public health safeguards. They do not deal with animal health, which is covered by existing legislation. I heard someone mention foot and mouth disease which is what I shall deal with now.

Mr. Home Robertson: rose——

Mr. Jopling: There has been some public controversy about safeguards against foot and mouth disease. We are changing from a system of specific animal health licensing for UHT and sterilised milk, cream and milk-based drinks, to one of general licences as a result of the European Court judgment. I assure the House that our conditions will continue to provide adequate safeguards against the introduction of foot and mouth disease.
The time-temperature combination of heat treatment required for UHT products under the animal health regulations is a minimum of 135°C for at least one second and for sterilised products 108°C for 45 minutes. My veterinary advisers are satisfied that these combinations are sufficient to provide an adequate safeguard against the risk of introducing animal diseases such as foot and mouth. I have had this advice confirmed by the experts from the Animal Virus Research Institute at Pirbright, which I think will be recognised as the world reference laboratory for foot and mouth disease.
If any case of foot and mouth disease were to occur in a country which sends milk to us, we would immediately investigate the circumstances to see whether there was any risk of post-processing contamination. In such an event we would consider what additional precautions were necessary—for example, area restrictions.

Mr. Mark Hughes: That is one of the most disturbing statements that I have heard during my 13 years in the

House. If ever a stable door was being closed after the horse had bolted, it is that one. It is a disgrace for any Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to come to the House with such regulations when we have no additional controls to prevent the import of foot and mouth disease. I am appalled by the Minister's statement.

Mr. Jopling: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should say that. It is a dreaded disease which cannot be——

Mr. Spearing: Think of something to say.

Mr. Jopling: —which we have not had in this country for many years.

Mr. Home Robertson: Yes, we have.

Mr. Jopling: I believe that these regulations will be sufficient to deal with it.

Mr. Hardy: rose——

Mr. Jopling: Foot and mouth disease can be carried in food products other than milk. There is always an outside risk of that disease coming into the country. No Minister of either party could give an assurance that the disease would not come into the country.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: rose——

Mr. Jopling: If foot and mouth disease broke out in a country within the Community, and there have been a number of outbreaks of the disease in the Community over the years, although not many, we would deal with it in relation to milk in almost exactly the same way as we would for any other food product.

Mr. Cormack: rose——

Mr. Jopling: The position with regard to milk is exactly the same as it has always been for other foodstuffs.

Mr. Cormack: Dairy farmers in my constituency have put two points to me. The first is the fact that foot and mouth disease is endemic in Community countries. Secondly, what guarantee is there that the tests, which my right hon. Friend assures me are adequate, will be done? Is there any inspection by which we will know that the tests will conform to the standards?

Mr. Jopling: There were two outbreaks of foot and mouth disease in Denmark in 1982. It is well known that we import a great deal of bacon and pig products from Denmark. It has been a regular practice for Britain to import animal products from countries in which foot and mouth disease has appeared from time to time. The hon. Gentleman is being unreasonable in making a fuss about this matter.

Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Jopling: No.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: rose——

Mr. Jopling: I shall deal with the scope of the regulations. The first point that I wish to make, which has not been sufficiently acknowledged, is that we do not start with a clean slate. Far from it——

Mr. Maclennan: rose——

Mr. Jopling: I shall give way later. Before the judgment, imports of all types of milk were effectively prevented. As a result of the decision taken by the Labour Government in 1977, from that date imports of cream have


been freely admitted. When the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes) refers to milk imports I hope that he recalls that in 1977 imports of cream were freely admitted. Some of the criticism from Opposition Members is strange.

Mr. Hardy: rose——

Mr. Jopling: I will not give way.
This matter was seized upon by the European Commission and the European Court of Justice and was criticised as being inconsistent treatment of products with similar health risks. In framing our regime, we have had to consider several constraints. First, the measures that we propose for imports must, in accordance with the treaty, be entirely justifiable on public health grounds. We cannot introduce restrictions for economic reasons.
Secondly, such measures must not be more stringent than those which apply to home production, although our intention is that they shall be no less so. Thirdly, they must be consistent. We cannot treat different products differently when the health risks are the same. Fourthly, we should not, without good reason, interrupt an existing trade. Several serious legal challenges under our interim regime since February have underlined the importance of that matter.
The application of the four criteria lead to two important conclusions, which must be spelt out. First, there is no question that our measures can be confined to ultra-heat treated milk. The judgment was confined to UHT milk because that was the subject of the complaint before the court which, in its judgment, interpreted how the provisions of articles 30 and 36 of the treaty should be applied. Those articles are of general scope and apply to all types of milk. We have had to consider how the principles laid down by the court should apply to other types of milk.
Our second conclusion was that we must devise a regime which takes account not only of the wider implications of the judgment, but which draws a dividing line, as do these regulations, on the strongest possible legal basis. This means that we must take full account of the four criteria to which I have referred. I can see much disadvantage in making a minimal provision in our regulations which could be attached immediately, on a legal basis, as being inadequate and call for a relaxation of our initial regime.
I shall illustrate these principles by explaining why we decided to make provision for the import of sterilised milk and of frozen pasteurised cream. Sterilised milk in the United Kingdom is subject to a spectrum of heat treatments and not to just one standard form of treatment. It consists of using temperatures ranging between 104 and 113 deg C and with times of treatment ranging between 15 and 40 minutes.
We are imposing a requirement on imports of 108 deg C for 45 minutes, which is equivalent to treatments in the upper part of the spectrum, and is more rigorous than those which we propose to require as the minimum for UHT milk, which is treated at 132·2 deg C for one second. There could be no public health justification for not making provision for the import of such sterilised milk. We already admit freely imports of sterilised cream as a result of the Labour Government's decision, to which I referred. I understand fully the economic importance of

sterilised milk in United Kingdom milk consumption, but at present there are no imports of that product. I can see no purpose in legislating to exclude imports of that product if such a decision cannot be defended legally on public health grounds.

Ms. Harman: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Jopling: No.
Sterilised milk at the lower end of the spectrum is a product similar to pasteurised milk, where the safeguards provided by a rigorous heat treatment process are not available. We have, therefore, not provided for this product in the regulations.
The present position under the regulations is that pasteurised milk, which comprises about 90 per cent. of our liquid milk consumption, and sterilised milk, which has been treated less vigorously than UHT milk, will continue to be banned from entering the United Kingdom.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Not for long.

Mr. Jopling: When the hon. Gentleman says "not for long", he is saying that should there be a further attack by the courts, we should lose the case. That is not my view. That is a defeatist and dangerous attitude to take on public health grounds. I hope the hon. Gentleman will reflect upon his comment, which is damaging to public health in Britain.

Mr. Robert Hughes: It is a bit rough for the Minister to complain that what happened in 1977 is all the fault of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin). The Minister has, by these regulations, opened the door so far that he will face difficulties, although I believe that he can succeed. The Minister, by going so far, has given the Opposition no confidence that the Government will stand by the industry.

Mr. Jopling: When the hon. Gentleman reads what I have said, he will regret the remark that he made from a sedentary position a few moments ago.
There is a small existing trade in frozen pasteurised cream, which follows the Labour Government's decision in 1977. Although frozen pasteurised cream is not subject to rigorous heat treatment, as compared with UHT milk or cream, we consider that the public health status of the product is acceptable under suitable conditions because the freezing prevents the growth of contaminating pathogenic bacteria which would otherwise multiply steadily at room temperature or even at refrigerator temperature.
I wish to deal with the time and temperature combinations of heat treatment. We propose to require, in the new domestic regulations for UHT cream and milk-based drinks and in the parallel provisions for imports, a minimum treatment of 140 deg C for two seconds. That is higher than the public health requirement of 132·2 deg C for one second, which we have had for the past 20 years in our domestic legislation for UHT milk. On technical grounds, it is reasonable to specify a slightly higher standard for cream, which is of course thicker, and for flavoured milk to which other substances have been added. Recently there have been suggestions that to provide the fullest safeguards against some public health hazards, such as botulism, we should specify in our import regulations a standard for milk similar to that proposed for cream.
In considering that suggestion I had to examine two matters: first, the fact that in practice other member states already apply more stringent standards to their UHT


milk—140 deg C for two seconds — although in most cases this goes beyond what is provided for in their legislation; and secondly, I have been conscious of the fact that to specify this higher standard in our import regulations would require us to have the same standards in our domestic regulations, which might be unwelcome in some sections of our industry.
Against that background I have taken the view that it would be right to maintain the present provision for milk in our domestic regulations of 132·2 deg C for one second, and to have the same provision in our import regulations. However, I am ready to have further discussions on the views that have been expressed, and to consider, in the outcome of those discussions and of the information that we shall be gathering about the standard of treatment of the imported product, whether a later amendment to the regulations will be needed with regard to the heat and time treatment of UHT milk. That assurance meets one of the requests of the National Farmers Union, and also meets the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Jopling: I have given way a great deal to the hon. Gentleman, who has made almost as long a speech as I have.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Will the Secretary of State give us a time scale for this matter, because he is clearly closing another stable door after another horse? When will those consultations be completed and when will the amended regulations be brought before the House?

Mr. Jopling: It was a Labour Minister who opened the stable door, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue this matter. I will not give a time scale for it.
I know that the possible economic implications of the proposed imports cause great concern to the dairy industry, which has been extremely vociferous — I do not blame it for that—in propagating its views of how we should tackle the problem that has been created by the European Court's judgment. My Department has had full consultations with the industry, and I am bound to say that I am disappointed that in many recent public statements the industry has concentrated negatively on the possible economic dangers and has largely ignored the legal and other considerations that must be taken into account.
I am well aware of the fear that cheap milk in the shops could undermine the doorstep delivery service, although I should add that the threat comes not only from imported milk. Hon. Members will remember the recent Tesco milk offer, when pasteurised milk was sold for a short time with a minuscule mark-up at a price substantially undercutting the doorstep-delivered price. The milk was about 4p a pint cheaper than the milk delivered on the doorstep. I am not against sensible developments to widen consumer choice on an economic base, but I am well aware of the adverse consequences for consumers, for milk producers and for those who work in the dairy industry, that could flow from a sudden decline in or a loss of doorstep deliveries. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) referred to old-age pensioners, whom I have very much in mind.
However, we must be careful not to exaggerate the risk of that happening or to increase it by unwise reactions to the threat of imports. I remind the House that the taste of UHT and sterilised milk must limit its appeal to British

consumers, accustomed as they are to fresh pasteurised milk. I do not know how many hon. Members have tried it, but I think that it tastes horrid. I cannot believe that many people would wish to try it twice——

Ms. Harman: What about those who are hard up?

Mr. Jopling: —and having tasted it once I would not wish to do so again.
During the months since I have been responsible for such matters, I have been impressed by the wide support enjoyed by the doorstep delivery service. That has emerged clearly from my correspondence and from the many representations that have been made to me by hon. Members and by their constituents.
I know of and welcome the efforts being made by the National Dairy Council and the Glass Manufacturers Federation to remind consumers of the great advantages of the doorstep delivery service and its dependence on consumer support. That is the right approach, because in the last resort the service, and the many jobs that go with it, depend on the support of the consumer. The British consumer values both the product and the service provided. If the dairy industry continues to bend its efforts towards maintaining and improving the service and the product, and gives publicity to its advantages rather than those of the imported substitute, this unique service will retain the loyalty of the British consumer. I have full confidence in the industry's commercial skill and capacity to compete. Supermarkets may wish to expand their sales, but they have no interest in giving priority to imports. The Government have no wish to damage doorstep deliveries —quite the reverse—but they cannot seek to protect it by improper means. It is up to the industry to fight for its market, and I believe that it can do so.
I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to vote against the motion and to join me in encouraging our consumers to continue to support the regular doorstep delivery of fresh, pasteurised, British milk.

Mr. William Ross: I listened with great interest to the Secretary of State, who referred throughout his speech to imported milk and to UHT milk. However, in Northern Ireland the door has been open to other products for some time. In Northern Ireland, as in other parts of the United Kingdom, there are high standards for the treatment of milk. However, if we must import milk from the continent and from the rest of the island of Ireland, we fear that those countries will not impose equal standards on their dairy products and that we cannot have equal treatment or equal competition with our products.
There are high transport costs involved in bringing milk from the Continent, but in Northern Ireland those high transport costs do not exist, because the milk is simply loaded into a tanker, which is driven across the border. I am curious—no doubt the Minister will give us full information about this when he replies—about the three entry points that he mentioned. Are they land frontier entry points, sea ports, or a combination of both? As I understand it, milk from Great Britain will still not be imported into Northern Ireland or, perhaps, the rest of the island of Ireland when the regulations are passed. I hope they are not passed, but there is a question there which demands an answer.
The Library has provided me with an interesting research note which I assume the Minister has seen. On page 8 of that document, the Minister will find a list of the retail prices of liquid pasteurised milk at January 1983 in various Common Market countries. He will discover that the retail price in the United Kingdom was 37p per litre, whereas in Eire it was 26·5p. That difference arises because the method and organisation of milk production and processing in the Irish Republic is very different from that in Northern Ireland or the rest of the United Kingdom. A considerable price differential has appeared—10·5p a litre.
When non-United Kingdom produced milk starts to flow across the border into Northern Ireland, the effect upon the dairy industry there will be horrific. It is inevitable that the milk will not so much flow as rush in a raging torrent across the frontier. Because of the system in the United Kingdom, that rush will have a disturbing effect throughout the nation. There is no way in which to avoid that. The Minister should tell us far more. What he has revealed today will simply create terror among producers in Northern Ireland.
The Government have also skated lightly over the importation of cream. The Minister talked of fresh cream imports under the previous Labour Government. Is it not a fact that those imports came principally from the Irish Republic? I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman was careful to qualify what he said when discussing them. He said that there was no way in which imports could be prevented when they came from countries that have health standards that are similar to ours. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) an assurance on 10 May that health standards in the Irish Republic were the same as those in Northern Ireland. That is one matter on which there has been general agreement between Dublin and Belfast for many years. Standards might not always be as well administered in the southern part of the country as they are in Northern Ireland, but there is an intention that standards should be similar.
The Minister used the similarity of standards between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland in an attempt to justify the importation of fresh cream from continental countries. Hon. Members will realise that he was not comparing like with like. If he was attempting to do that he should explain which countries in the EC have similar health standards to those appertaining in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland.
The Minister was not convincing today, and it will take a great deal more to convince the milk producing community in Northern Ireland that their future is assured, in spite of what has been announced today. The imports that we are being asked to allow were supposed to be confined to UHT and sterilised milk. The Minister went further than that and without justification. As a result, he has created grave circumstances for the dairying part of the agricultural community. What does the Minister mean by sterilised? He gave us a string of figures and described various treatments. I shall read what he said with interest tomorrow. On 10 May in reply to the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Spence) — he represented Thirsk and Malton before the general election—who asked whether

UHT milk carries foot and mouth disease and whether research had been carried out, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said:
The answer is no, as the temperatures used in the process would kill the disease."—[Official Report, 10 May 1983; Vol. 42, c. 759.]
Information that I have received casts some doubt on that answer. There is also the clostridium botulinum bacterium. On foot and mouth disease, a document which I have received states:
there is uncertainty about the lethal effect on the foot and mouth virus of heating milk to 132·2°C for one second and since imports will be permitted from Member States with endemic foot and mouth disease … it is imperative that the heat treatment should be increased to 140°C for 2 seconds.
The Minister told us that Pirbright informed him that the treatment that he will insist on will be sufficient. I wonder about that. Foot and mouth is endemic in many countries. The most recent outbreak in Britain cost the farming community and the state an enormous amount of money. If the most recent outbreak is considered to have been many years ago, I should like to have the right hon. Gentleman's definition of "many years" as there was a major outbreak in the 1970s. By farming standards, that is not many years ago—it is the very recent past. The raw scars of that outbreak remain in farmers' minds. We do not want to take the risk of repeating those dreadful months.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: The recent past to which the hon. Gentleman refers was 1982, when there were 23 outbreaks. That is rather more recent than one might have thought.

Mr. Ross: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that information. The outbreak was even more recent than I thought. However, there was a much more serious outbreak a few years earlier, and it proved much more costly.
According to my information, the problem is that cows can secrete the foot and mouth virus into milk for several days before they show clinical signs of having the disease. Therefore, imports of pasteurised cream involve a risk of introducing the virus to Britain. Moreover, there is a grave risk that the virus will be spread throughout the country before its presence is detected. Freezing has no effect on the survival of the virus. People do not eat frozen cream. My experience is that people take the stuff out of the freezer, thaw it and whip it or use it in some other form. A small quantity could be left over for several days. That is the normal procedure in every household, as every hon. Member and housewife knows.
The danger is real and great and the Minister's attempt to justify importing fresh or frozen cream is unacceptable. It is certainly unacceptable to me. I hope that it is unacceptable to the House, although no doubt the Whips will ensure that in the eyes of the world it will appear to be acceptable to the House.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): As the hon. Gentleman refers specifically to Northern Ireland, I confirm that the health status of the Republic of Ireland is the same as that of Northern Ireland. Imports from the south therefore involve no risk of foot and mouth disease.
With regard to imports from other EC states, I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will need to be specific animal health licenses certified by the veterinary


authorities in the north, who will require to satisfy themselves as to the animal health status of the country of origin and the heat treatment to which the product has been subjected. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ross: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but that statement does not take us very far. He referred to heat treatment, but there is no heat treatment, in the sense used hitherto, in the formation of frozen cream. The process goes in the other direction. The temperature is lowered, not raised. I therefore find his comments surprising, but perhaps we may have a fuller explanation of the process later.
I am not just concerned about Northern Ireland. Like all hon. Members, I am concerned about the United Kingdom as a whole. The Minister said in opening that there was no way in which the United Kingdom could interfere in another country's affairs. There were, of course, interruptions from various parts of the House whenever he made that comment. At present, as for many years past, at the various potato-exporting ports of Northern Ireland there are Egyptian inspectors to ensure that potatoes from Northern Ireland farms meet the standard required by Egypt. If that can be done with potatoes, why should not similar and indeed more comprehensive arrangements be made for milk?

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It is inside the Community.

Mr. Ross: I see no reason why that should not take place within the Community. If the United Kingdom accepts such inspections so that we can sell seed potatoes to Egypt, other countries which are clearly anxious to make money out of selling milk here— they intend to make a profit, not a loss—should be willing to accept the stringent demands that we ought to make but apparently have not so far made in this respect.
Grave concern is always expressed about the future of doorstep deliveries. There is no doubt that doorstep deliveries are threatened by the import of milk. I understand that the economics of the doorstep delivery system is very finely balanced. The economics of the whole United Kingdom milk sector is equally finely balanced. If our milk sector is disrupted to such an extent that the doorstep delivery falls, the whole house of cards will fall and all the jobs involved in transport and delivery of milk will disappear. That is extremely serious. Moreover, the whole structure — the sharing arrangements and co-operation in the present monopoly—will be at risk and the whole system of milk production in which there has been such vast public and private investment will be destroyed, causing great hardship for many farmers.
The entire milk industry of this country — the production, sale, treatment and delivery of milk—is under threat as a result of the regulations. That is why the House is so worried. That anxiety is to be found not only
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food told her hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr):
the same health and hygiene requirements." —— [Official Report, 10 May 1983; Vol. 42, c. 759.]
will apply to imports from other countries as apply to imports from the Irish Republic. From what I have heard this evening it seems that the Government are failing to live up to that undertaking. There is no way in which any

British Government can say that the status of animal health on the continent is anything like as good as it is in the island of Ireland. Therefore, the Government have retreated from the promise made on 10 May. Everyone concerned with the milk industry must condemn that failure, and I hope that hon. Members will do so in the Lobby tonight.
Those farmers who listened to their leadership — which has not yet changed its mind — when we discussed the Common Market 10 years ago should now realise how foolish they were to do so. The pigeons are coming home to roost, and the farmers do not like the pigeons very much.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Many hon. Members wish to speak and the debate must end at 11.30 pm. I therefore appeal for brief contributions.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order if you invoked the 10-minute rule in view of the number of hon. Members who want to speak?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would dearly like to, but I have no power to do so. I can only appeal to hon. Members.

Sir Peter Mills: I must declare an interest, in that three huge milk plants are located in my constituency—Express Dairies, the Milk Marketing Board and Ambrosia.
To say the least, one is concerned about these regulations. The Government have been placed in a difficult situation following the European Court case of 8 February. However, no hon. Member has acknowledged that the Government have kept out this milk for a long time. It is a miracle that that has been done, particularly as we are members of a community which believes in free trade.
One can understand the reasons why the Government have brought forward these regulations. They have been obliged to accept and introduce them. One can also understand the real fears and strong feelings of the various milk organisations in the United Kingdom. Indeed, much is at stake if doorstep deliveries are threatened.
The Opposition's case is not convincing. Sadly. they never mention the producer, and he is concerned about these matters as well.

Mr. Robert Hughes: We did mention the producer.

Sir Peter Mills: Well, not very strongly. It must also be remembered that the president of the NFU has said that we must accept these regulations and that it would be unwise if we were to change course now.
Although the Opposition Front Bench made it quite clear that we should accept the ruling of the European Court, other hon. Members, including some of my hon. Friends, have said that they do not. I remind Opposition Members in particular that in 1977 the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food introduced the pigmeat subsidy. A European Court ruling was given on 21 May and on 11 June the subsidy was stopped. The Socialist Minister acted quickly on that occasion, and my right hon. Friend is doing exactly the same now.
How the doorstep delivery system will be affected by UHT imports is unpredictable. The future depends on our


action to counter those imports. We should go on the attack. We have the best milk in the world. Instead of accepting this situation, we should be counter-attacking all the time. The future of doorstep deliveries depends on the quality of milk, the service and the price. That must be remembered as well.
My big criticism of the Opposition and of some sections of the dairy trade is the tremendous publicity they have given to this milk. Many people had not heard of sterilised or UHT milk, but they have now. The Socialists and others who oppose the regulations have given the product the best publicity it could have received. There has been free advertising all along the line. Many housewives and consumers will say, "This milk is cheaper by 5p a pint; let us try it." The Opposition have done a grave disservice to doorstep deliveries by their free advertising.
UHT and sterilised milk are not of the same standard as fresh milk. Certainly I do not like the taste. I have heard that even cats do not like sterilised milk. We must publicise good, fresh milk which has been pasteurised. The Milk Marketing Board and the industry are determined to go forward on the attack rather than being on the defensive.
There are strong rumours that parts of the trade want to import fresh milk, perhaps to undermine the power of the Milk Marketing Board. If what I have heard is true, it destroys completely the case of the Opposition. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give some information about that.
The Opposition and the trade unions have forgotten something else, and I hope that the shadow Minister will listen carefully. If we do not adopt the regulations, there may be legal problems not only in the Community but in this country if people wish to purchase imported milk. I wish my right hon. Friend had put more stress on that aspect of the matter.
What I fear most is retaliation against food exports. If we refuse to import milk from some parts of the Community, what will they say about our exports of food? I must declare an interest, because in my constituency are North Devon Meat and other food processing companies. If there were retaliation, trade union members in such plants would be affected. I do not think the Opposition have thought about that. It could undermine our whole food export trade. I accept that there is a delicate balance. I would much rather things continued as they are, but we must accept the regulations. Much is at stake.
I hope that the Minister will refer to foot and mouth disease. I have had an excellent brief from the Milk Marketing Board which shows clearly that some countries are concerned about our exports of milk powder. If there were the slightest suspicion that there was foot and mouth in this country they would not accept our milk powder.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Does my hon. Friend not recall that the Milk Marketing Board had a severe setback with exports to Mexico because of what happened on the Isle of Wight?

Sir Peter Mills: I was coming to that. We have evidence that there has been a problem when there has been a suspicion of foot and mouth in this country. We also need to study carefully the problem of chlostridium botulinum.
I have received an excellent brief from the Milk Marketing Board in Northern Ireland. That country produces excellent milk. Indeed, I have a soft spot for Northern Ireland, as I was once a Minister there. I hope that my right hon. Friend will reconsider the whole question of frozen pasteurised cream. I am not at all happy about that. If Northern Ireland feels strongly about it, we should consider the matter again.
The Opposition do not have a leg to stand on. It was a previous Labour Government who opened the door to the difficulties that we are now facing. They cannot wriggle out of that. On balance, I shall support the Minister, but I hope that he will take note of the various points that have been raised during the debate.
My message to the Opposition and to the dairy trade is, "For goodness sake go on to the attack. We have the best milk in the world, so let us sell it."

Mr. Alfred Morris: I have the honour to speak in the debate as chairman of the co-operative parliamentary group. The debate is of the first importance to the co-operative movement which is, of course, much the largest consumer organisation in Britain. It is with pride that I declare an interest as a co-operatively sponsored Member of Parliament. As well as being the largest consumer organisation, the co-operative movement is both the largest farmer and the largest supplier of liquid milk. Those are its credentials for insisting that its voice should be heard in this important debate.
Britain has more liquid milk sales than any other country in Europe. Furthermore, the volume of milk sales is related to the extent of doorstep delivery, which exceeds that in any other country. All the evidence suggests that, when doorstep deliveries decline, the consumption of milk falls with it. The co-op—or rather the co-ops, because we are not in any way a monolithic entity, but rather a collection of community-based, community-owned and community-oriented voluntary associations — together supply more than one quarter of the nation's milk. We do so through a doorstep delivery service, which we want to continue in the interests of our many millions of members. We also sell milk in shops, where the price is lower than for doorstep deliveries but it is our view that milk imports, at perhaps 5p or 6p a pint cheaper than milk sold on the doorstep, could seriously undermine the doorstep delivery system.
Milk is a price-sensitive commodity for many families. There are 7 million people living in or near poverty. A price differential of 5p or 6p is a considerable incentive to them to opt for foreign milk. I hope that no one will try to minimise the importance of the price factor.
The doorstep delivery of milk would, in many cases, become uneconomic if there was even a marginal switch to cheap imported milk. The profit on doorstep deliveries is small. If only 3 per cent. of consumers switched to imported milk in shops, or bought 3 per cent. less each week from their milkman, his round could become uneconomic. In consequence, the remaining 97 per cent. of consumers on the round would lose their choice of doorstep delivery. For many, that would inevitably mean that they could not even choose between fresh and long-life milk. The elderly and the disabled, large family units and those living in remote areas without private transport, would be especially hard hit. The effect of fewer rounds would be a drop in the consumption of milk. That would


be bad nutritionally, especially as replacement food, if any, would almost certainly be more expensive, and therefore the poorest would suffer most.
There is also the issue of public health. The Government's approach to the issue seems to the cooperative movement to be an abandonment of the previous policy. The change is, in our view, highly dangerous and unacceptable. It is one from "no risk" to "minimum risk" and I am by no means reassured by the parliamentary replies that I have had from Ministers on this issue.
The consumer interest in the doorstep delivery of milk is reinforced by the producer and distribution interests. The number of jobs that are at risk, the industries that face decline, perhaps even extinction, must also be considered. There are tens of thousands of workers directly involved in the doorstep delivery service and many more on farms and in industries such as glass, bottling and electric vehicle manufacturing.
My hon. Friends the Members for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) have made a very distinguished contribution in arranging for the workers whose jobs are at risk to have their case heard by the House. I know that my hon. Friends will speak on the employment consequences of what is proposed. At the same time, I am sure that my hon. Friends will have been pleased to learn that Brian Hellowell, speaking for the cooperative movement, recently made it clear that we are concerned not only with interests of consumers, but also
…to preserve jobs and the vital service aspect of doorstep contact.
The Minister, who has left the Chamber, told me in a reply on Monday:
…in the last resort the future of this unique service can be assured only by the continued support of consumers." —[Official Report, 14 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 354.]
He should have said, and must now recognise, that the future of this unique service can be determined by the merest minority of consumers. As I have shown, as few as 3 per cent. of consumers could leave very many milk rounds no longer viable. What the Minister is doing is to allow freedom of choice for the vast majority to be put at risk by a tiny minority of defectors to foreign milk. It is a central fallacy in the Minister's speech tonight, as in his reply to me on Monday, to imply that the majority of consumers can save the doorstep delivery service. It can be ended by a small minority of consumers.
Quite apart from my role in the Co-operative movement, there are two other reasons why I have a special interest in the debate. First, as the Minister knows, I had very close links with the Department for a number of years, going back to the mid-1960s—that is, long before the second coming of Lord Peart.
The other reason is that, as the then Minister responsible for the disabled, I was very much involved in the making and launching of the Dairy Trade Federation's "Care Code" for milk roundsmen in 1977. The code asks milkmen to observe, inquire and take action whenever milk they have delivered has not been taken in, or if they see any other signs that a customer may be in serious difficulty. The success of the code over the past six years has shown how our doorstep delivery service provides an essential link with the outside world for the elderly and the disabled. There are countless instances of milk roundsmen coming to the aid of their customers who are in trouble.

Rev. Ian Paisley: >: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The debate affects Northern Ireland, yet no Minister representing Northern Ireland is on the Front Bench. Surely a Minister should be present.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. I am sure that Ministers have heard the hon. Gentleman's comment, but it is not a matter for me.

Mr. Morris: Most of the instances of help given by milk roundsmen have gone unreported, but the Ely milkman who, in July of this year, received a bravery award for rescuing two children from their burning home, and the Knaresborough dairyman who discovered an elderly lady who had suffered a stroke, are two striking examples of the code's success. Therefore, the Minister must not be allowed to ignore the social cost of undermining the uniquely valuable service of doorstep delivery.
Many will have read a recent article about milk imports by John Young in The Times. After pointing out that tomorrow the floodgates are to be opened and, for the first time in our history, foreign milk will be imported, he said:
All that stands in the way is the House of Commons, which will be urged on Wednesday evening to throw out the new regulations and tell the European Court to mind its own business.
Far from telling the court to mind its own business, the Minister has gone further than the strict requirements of this provision by allowing in sterilised milk and pasteurised cream.
I quote from a letter from the National Joint Council for the Dairy Industry in England and Wales, which says:
What is causing most anxiety is that the Minister of Agriculture intends to let in sterilised milk and frozen pasteurised cream as well as UHT milk. This is beyond the requirements of the European Court and goes against previous Government assurances.
Does the Minister think that the French would go further than a decision of the European Court and, by so doing, damage the French national interest? He surely cannot believe that, but he has gone much further than he was required to do by the strict terms of the court's decision.
My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) pointed out that there was an inconsistency between the Government's attitude on this issue and their attitude on equal treatment for women. It was not good enough for the Minister to say that he had no responsibility in that field. He is a member of the same Government as the Minister who is standing in the way of a court decision that does not suit this Government. The Minister's speech was inadequate, glib and grossly incompetent.
Fundamentally, what we are dealing with tonight is another of the absurd consequences of the common agricultural policy of the EC. I hope that many Conservative Members will join us tonight in resisting these orders. It will be much to their honour if they do.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: I intend to make a brief contribution to the debate tonight in order to describe to the House some of the reasons why I am unable to support my Government in extending the regulations to include the importation of sterilised milk and frozen pasteurised cream from the EC, in addition to the UHT long-life milk which we are now obliged to admit, whether or not we want it.
In this debate I wear three hats in championing the cause of the British dairy industry, the milk retailer and the


consumer, of whom I am one. In my constituency there are many efficient and well-run dairy farms in a county, Cheshire is renowned throughout the world for the excellence of its dairy products, which include the famous Cheshire cheeses—I stress that we have more than one—which we export all over the world.
We in Britain are not producing the milk surpluses that exist in the EC today. In the forthcoming reform of the common agricultural policy we shall be looking to the Minister to press for national quotas on milk so that those countries that are at present producing the surpluses will have to pay for those surpluses and be penalised for producing over and above their agreed national quotas. I do not want to see efficient British farmers subsidising the over-production of milk by countries such as the Netherlands, Denmark, France and Germany.
The dairy industry has fought long and hard to stop the importation of UHT milk, but reluctantly has had to accept last February's ruling of the European Court, with certain reservations. However, since then, and much to our disappointment, the Minister has seen fit to include in the new regulations the importation of sterilised milk and frozen pasteurised cream, and that will have a considerable effect on the industry as a whole.
It will particularly affect one of our national institutions, the doorstep delivery of milk. This service must continue if we are to keep up the sales of British fresh liquid milk, which is produced efficiently on the farms and is then transported to the dairies where it is processed and bottled under the strictest and most hygienic conditions before being delivered daily to the consumers.
During the recess I was fortunate to visit many dairy farms in my constituency to see one end of the operation. I also visited Healds, a big dairy in Manchester, where I saw the bottling and other processes. I am grateful to have had that experience, because it has helped me considerably.
The doorstep delivery of milk is of tremendous benefit to several sections of society. They have already been mentioned in the debate. The elderly, disabled, young mothers with small children and those who live in remote rural areas without their own transportation rely on doorstep deliveries. We have been told that a change of only 3 per cent. from the consumption of our own fresh pasteurised milk to foreign imported milk could affect the whole structure of doorstep deliveries. In that event, sales of liquid milk in Britain would drop considerably and that would badly affect many sections of the dairy industry, including the farmers. People will often go to the shops to buy cheap imported milk, but the others in the community whom I have described will find it difficult to carry enough bottled milk home. The result will be a drop in consumption, and that will be neither good nor practical.
If the doorstep delivery ceased, a social service would be lost. I hasten to add that it is a valuable social service which costs the state not a penny, which is more than can be said of many social services. Every day a friendly milk roundsman calls in the neighbourhood. He can spot at first hand the tell-tale signs of trouble or illness in the household of, say, an elderly resident. As we know, once a service to the community ceases it is rarely restored, and society is the poorer for that.
The effects on public health might prove even more damaging, because imported sterilised milk, which is

produced, processed and bottled under far less stringent conditions than apply in Britain, would still contain certain contaminants which could affect both humans and animals. That aspect has been discussed at length in the debate.
That also applies to frozen pasteurised cream, the importation of which would, I believe, be the thin end of the wedge for future imports of fresh pasteurised milk, and that, as a consequence, would undermine even further our efficient dairy industry.
In my area sales of sterilised milk account for about 6 per cent. of the liquid milk sold, and I believe that that is about the national average. However, in certain inner city areas the figure can go as high as 23 per cent. One can imagine what the import of cheaper foreign milk supplied through the shops would do to the small independent roundsman and to the bigger dairies, and the damage that would be done to employment prospects as a result.
Employment in many associated industries would also be affected. I refer to glass manufacture, electric vehicle construction and the manufacture of heavy goods vehicles. That would, in turn, affect my constituency badly, as heavy goods vehicles are manufactured in Sandbach and are certainly used in the dairy industry. I have not even touched on all the other jobs that might be put in jeopardy, including those involving the processing and bottling of milk, distribution to the various depots and delivering the product to the doorstep.
Ultimately, it is the consumer who will suffer once again. However, I for one have great faith in the good common sense of the British housewife who, in her search for good value for money and not just the cheapest product on the market, will come down on the side of the fresh pure British pinta that is delivered to her door. I am one of thousands who feel that we must do all that we can to protect our best national interest in this matter, and I urge the Minister to do exactly the same.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: I shall try to be brief, because many other hon. Members wish to speak. I want to concentrate on something that the Minister disgracefully skated over in his speech. I refer to the effect of these measures on British jobs in the milk and supportive industries.
My constituency has the biggest milk bottle manufacturing plant in the country, and probably in Europe. It employs 460 people. It turns out 100 million milk bottles every year. That is one third of this country's output, which is in all, 300 million milk bottles. Hon. Members should imagine the jobs that are involved and the number that will vanish as a result of the regulations. Each milk bottle makes 20 trips, so the job is regular as the bottles do not have any returnable value. In that town the unemployment rate already stands at 14 per cent. with 3,731 people unemployed. The town is surrounded by dairy farms. The Minister's attitude seems to be that the Common Market is the be-all and end-all, and that British jobs must come last. That is not good enough.
That attitude is wholly contrary to the Government's patriotic attitude towards the Falkland Islands. It is time that the Minister started defending jobs in Britain, instead of taking so much notice of the European Court. The production of milk bottles requires a lot of sand, silica, quarrying and so on. When we met the glass manufacturers in the House last Thursday, they were deeply concerned


about the effect of these measures on their products. A bottling plant has to run at a high volume. That means that it also turns out, for example, sauce and pop bottles, pickle jars and jam jars. A huge quantity of glass has to be melted. Therefore, if the milk bottle trade goes, the other side of glass manufacturing will go with it. The size of furnace and weight of glass involved car, not be used just to turn out a smaller quantity of, for example, sauce and medicine bottles.
Each milk bottle costs 6p to produce. Supermarkets selling plastic containers of milk will be able to undercut heavily the price of milk that is delivered to the doorstep. To gain a foothold in the market, Common Market imports will be sold as loss leaders and will be widely advertised. It has been said that the taste is not so good, but such milk can be used in Yorkshire puddings, scrambled eggs, milk puddings and in the sort of cheap dietary meals that pensioners and housewives who are on low incomes have to make.
As has been said, in rural areas doorstep deliveries enable the milkman to keep an eye on old people. The milkman will know if someone has not been seen for a few days. However, what will happen now? The milkman knows that if the delivery of milk has not been taken away, he ought to tell the local authorities that something is seriously wrong. If no milkman calls, a pensioner might have to be three of four weeks behind in rent payments before any one knows that he or she is in difficulty.
The Tory Government's attitude to rural areas is unbelievable. With the privatisation of British Telecom — despite the Government's promises—the telephone boxes in the villages will go. During the four years of the Conservative Government, the price of petrol has increased from 84p a gallon to £1·84 a gallon, and this has hammered the rural areas. Village shops have gone to the wall because they cannot afford to trade. In rural areas, old people who do not have a car to take them to the supermarket to buy their milk in bulk will finish up with no milk. It is not economical to deliver a bottle of milk to one house, miss the next 9 or 10 houses and then deliver the milk somewhere else. The milk supply business, which includes delivery, the manufacture of glass, bottling, loading and distribution, is based on volume. The whole industry is attacked if this volume is hit. In the Netherlands, when daily doorstep milk deliveries declined, milk consumed from that source fell from 80 per cent. to 25 per cent. of total consumption.
The Tory Government's philosophy on the market economy affects their attitudes to the Common Market. They say that the market must find its own level and we must have the widest possible market. Why does this not apply to gas? The Government believe in rigging and controlling the gas price and skimming off the profits to regulate consumption and to make it profitable for the Exchequer to pull in an extra £1 billion a year. However, the Government do not apply the same argument to milk. About 55,000 jobs at least — perhaps 75,000 if we include those who work in the quarries to make the raw materials of the milk bottle — are at stake if these regulations are accepted.
The Government are in a supine position and are allowing the Common Market to tread all over them. Last year, the Common Market said that it would revise the way in which it drew up the figures for the proposed British rebate. There were howls of outrage from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime

Minister. Tonight, they have the opportunity to say to the Common Market: "We are not standing for your juggling of the figures. We shall not acept that you are taking away our rebate. In protest, we shall withdraw these regulations until the matter is sorted out. Until we meet around the table to argue about this rebate, the House will not approve these regulations." The Government would do that if they were as patriotic as they profess and if they were as jingoistic and fond of flag waving as they were during the Falkland Islands incident. The Government accepted the Common Market measures when they agreed to reduce steel production by 14 million tonnes while Italy reduced production by I million tonnes.
The Government accept the milk proposals. They show no patriotism, pride or determination to fight for British jobs in this fallacy that they are proposing. Why do they not act as the French would if wine were entering France from Italy? Why do they not have one point of import, in a similar way to the French when one man at Poitiers handles the incoming Japanese video recorders? It takes six months to do the necessary paper-work and every restriction is placed on this video importation. Britain will have 17 points of import.
The party of jingoism, the Union Jack and rural areas consists of nothing but suckers. They are a push-over when someone else's interests are considered. It is time that the Government stood up to fight for their people in the rural areas and especially for British jobs. A butter mountain can be subsidised; but if there is a coal mountain the pits are shut, the miners are sacked and everything is sold out to the mass commercialism of the Common Market.
The Labour party is the party of Britain. We shall protect British jobs and interests and look after the British consumers. The Conservative party is the party that is selling out.

Mr. John Farr: I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) has left the Chamber, because I should have liked him to hear my comments about his reference to the Manchester co-operative society which has its headquarters in his constituency. It is the biggest landowner in my constituency, owning about 5,000 to 6,000 acres. It has taken the retrograde step which has incensed the local inhabitants, of banning all forms of foxhunting on its land in Leicestershire. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will read that message in Hansard tomorrow.
I listened with care to what my right hon. Friend said, because I am anxious to support the Government tonight if I can. I have always tried to support my party, but. I confess that I shall not be in the Lobby with it tonight. I have not taken that decision lightly, and I should like to explain briefly why I cannot take that step.
I agree that we must comply with the European Court ruling and allow UHT milk into this country. What worries me, as has been mentioned earlier, is the fact that the DHSS says that to eliminate the possibility of infection, the ultra-heat treatment should be at 140 deg C for two seconds, but I find that the regulations detail 132·2 deg C for one second. That makes me unhappy about accepting the regulations.
I am even more unhappy about sterilised milk. It is all very well for people to say that sterilised milk accounts for only about 6 per cent. of our milk sales, but that varies from one part of the country to another. In parts of the


midlands it accounts for one third of sales. I am not altogether happy about approving regulations allowing the importation of sterilised milk from the Community.
If the regulations come into effect after tonight's vote, the heating of sterilised milk will be increased to 108 deg C for 45 minutes. I have received expert advice that contaminants are not destroyed by that level of treatment and are often not destroyed by the level of treatment for UHT milk.
I could have gone along with my party on those points, but I part company with it in relation to the import of frozen pasteurised cream. I have done my best to fall in line with my right hon. Friend, but I have the nagging thought at the back of my mind that if we allow in frozen pasteurised cream — even my right hon. Friend recognises that the health standards of some continental producers are inadequate — we will find it almost impossible not to accept pasteurised milk. If we accept unsatisfactory standards for pasteurised cream, we shall find it difficult to prevent any subsequent attempt to bring in frozen pasteurised milk.

Mr. Jopling: I am pleased that my hon. Friend said that he could agree with the first two points, despite his reservations about the third. Will he remember that frozen pasteurised cream has been imported into Britain for the past seven years as a consequence of the decision of the Labour Government? My hon. Friend may ask whether a ban could have commenced now. Our experience has shown since the court case in February, that we would certainly have been taken straight to the European Court had we sought to change what has become an established chain. We faced an impossible option, but the Government were put into that position because of the decision by the Labour Government.

Mr. Farr: I am obliged to the Minister for his remarks. I must stress that some hon. Members have striven hard to understand the Minister's point of view. If we narrow down the conundrum, which appears in the complicated group of papers that hon. Members are studying, my right hon. Friend is asking the House to take two additional steps beyond those which the European Court has required. That is where I part company with my right hon. Friend. In any event, we must allow in imports of UHT milk but not sterilised milk. I also do not believe that we should allow frozen pasteurised cream to come into the country. Those battles can be fought later if a case is pressed. For goodness sake, we must not allow all our defences to fall today and allow Britain to become awash with imported milk and cream.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House are worried because many jobs in Britain depend upon the daily doorstep delivery. The milk roundsman is an important person, as the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) said. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) mentioned the importance, from a social point of view, of the daily doorstep delivery. We must also bear in mind the ancillary services which complement the daily doorstep deliveries. Our system, which is fragile and truly remarkable, is also a form of social service and is unique in Europe, if not in the entire western world.
I promised to be brief, and I have made my intentions fairly clear. I cannot understand why UHT milk is being

imported through 17 ports. If I had had my way, Skegness would have been the only point of access. The UHT milk imports would have taken a long time to get through Skegness. Why on earth must the process of importation be speeded up by providing 17 points of access? When the Minister replies, will he say what the extra cost will be, presumably to the United Kingdom consumer, in running the additional complicated machinery? Will every imported consignment be tested? I hope so. I believe that any import should be subjected to scrutiny and lengthy examination. I trust that the Minister will remember that some hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that he is wrong in this case.
With great regret, I will be unable to go into the Lobby tonight with my hon. Friends.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Once again, I declare an interest, in that there are many dairy producers in my constituency. We are fortunate in that the Milk Marketing Board erected a comprehensive factory many years ago employing hundreds of my constituents. I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) on a constructive maiden speech in his new responsibility of shadow spokesman for agriculture. I wish the hon. Gentleman well.
I believe the Minister to be a sorry man. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will regret trying to persuade the House to accept the regulations. When history is written, perhaps he will be regarded as the man who began to dismantle the daily milk delivery service in this country. I hope that I am wrong, for the sake of the consumers, the elderly and the young in our society.
Had the Minister not decided to extend the regulations quite arbitrarily beyond what had been previously agreed as applying to UHT milk only, there would probably have been no need for such a lengthy debate. It was a cynical gesture to arrange a debate on the day that the regulations come into force. It gives the impression that hon. Members are merely rubber-stamping decisions taken long ago, and gives easy ammunition to those who are enemies of the Community.
When the European Court gave its ruling in February of this year, it was clearly understood that it applied only to UHT milk. That was underlined in a House of Commons debate in May, and other hon. Members have emphasised what the Under-Secretary of State said then. The dairy industry, with some reservations, would have accepted that, since sales of UHT milk amount to just under 1 per cent. of total liquid milk sales, and they were more than able to compete with the competition. It is not likely that the British public will succumb easily to the product, as we have become used to the delicious pinta that is such a feature of our daily life. We are proud that 33 million pints of milk are delivered each morning to 16 million homes. That is a wonderful achievement, and we must do everything to maintain the existing system.
However, quite out of the blue, the Minister included sterilised milk and frozen pasteurised milk in the new regulations, which immediately changed the entire matter. Sterilised milk accounts for about 6 per cent. of the milk bought in Britain, and in some areas as much as 10 per cent. The British have always maintained the highest standards of hygiene in milk production, and each pint of milk produced here is carefully checked at each stage of


the process until it arrives on the doorstep. It cannot be claimed that every country in the EC has equally high standards and, as many of those countries are not entirely free of diseases such as foot and mouth and tuberculosis, there is always the possibility of a danger to public health.
The sterilisation requirement for imported milk is now 108 deg C for 45 minutes, but I am reliably informed that even that improved standard is insufficient to destroy contaminants that might be present in the milk. The DHSS recommends that UHT milk should be treated at 140 deg C for two seconds, but that standard is not being applied in the present regulations.
Concern has also been expressed that imports of frozen pasteurised cream will open the way for the import of pasteurised milk.
Another issue that has caught the public imagination is the threat to the doorstep delivery. That service is so much a part of our lives that many people take it for granted, but the figures show that the economics of the system are such that a fairly small drop in the number of people requiring the service would make it impractical to continue it at all even though a large majority of people might prefer it. Imported milk will of necessity be sold in shops and if just a few consumers are tempted away from the undoubtedly superior product supplied by the milk roundsman the doorstep delivery service will be in trouble. Those who will suffer most will be the old, the infirm and others unable to get to the shops with ease. Moreover, the many thousands of people involved in the distribution and bottling of milk would be out of work. The implications are therefore extremely serious.
The regulations should be withdrawn and amended to apply far higher standards of hygiene.

Mr. Maclennan: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most disturbing aspects of the Minister's comments on the health aspect is that he gave no assurances about the personnel to be employed in conducting the tests? He made no attempt to answer the authoritative claim of the Milk Marketing Board that the ports were wholly unequipped to carry out the necessary tests. He said not a word about that and repeatedly refused to give way when I sought to intervene to make the point.

Mr. Howells: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I am sure that the Minister will answer the question when he replies.
If the regulations were amended as we suggest they would ensure much fairer competition from our European partners and the continued health of consumers.
Sterilised milk and frozen pasteurised cream should be excluded from the present regulations. Many farming organisations and other bodies have suggested that there should be strict control by port authorities through comprehensive sampling and testing of all imported milk so as to enforce high standards. That is vital in view of the health risks of contaminated and impure milk. Milk is an important part of the British diet. It is nourishing, cheap and, at present, easily available. It is vital for producers, retailers and especially consumers that that should remain the case.
Finally, I wish to put a few questions to the Minister. Is it right to assume that frozen pasteurised cream does not meet the standard of UHT treatment and that imports should therefore not be allowed to continue? On 11 November the Farming News stated:

On the eve of the lifting of legal barriers to imported UHT milk from the Continent, it has been discovered that Harrods is already selling a French-made fresh pasteurised dairy cream.

Mr. Maclennan: I have some here. This is the stuff.

Mr. Howells: No doubt the Minister will confirm that later.
The article continued:
A DTF spokesman confirmed that his organisation had bought three packs of Claudel, at £1·15 each, for examination, 'At first glance this product, with a two-month shelf life, would appear to be improperly labelled,' he said.
I hope that the Minister will clarify the position when he replies.
How much UHT milk does the Minister estimate will be imported in the next six months? What will be the effect on the daily delivery of fresh milk? What plans has he to deal with the situation if foot and mouth disease is imported during the next few months? What will be the effect on the producer retailers who sell green top milk in various parts of the country? What will be the effect on the future role of the Milk Marketing Board? What will be the effect on milk producers? Finally, what will be the effect on the Dairy Trade Federation which has done excellent work in the past decade?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am glad that the Northern Ireland Office is now represented on the Front Bench. I should like to tell the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) that I was present when the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office made an intervention during the speech of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross).
The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) supported the regulations. He said that the Milk Marketing Board for Northern Ireland has produced an excellent paper on the subject. He did not however, tell the House that it utterly opposes the regulations. I can do no better than summarize some of the arguments that it makes. Frozen pasteurised cream could never previously have been imported into Northern Ireland. Whatever arguments there are about it being permitted in the rest of Great Britian, it was never before allowed in Northern Ireland. I know that there was a small importation of frozen pasteurised cream from the Republic of Ireland into Great Britain and I understand that some cream is imported from Normandy, but it never came into Northern Ireland.
I was a Member of Parliament when the vote on whether the United Kingdom should enter the Common Market was taken. On the night of that great debate, some hon. Members prophesied the very thing that is happening today — that the long arm of Europe would dictate policy to this sovereign Parliament. Their prophecy has come true. I am glad that I voted against membership. I remain utterly opposed to membership of the EC.
The European Court of Justice might have ruled that the Government of the United Kingdom must permit the import of UHT milk, but we were informed by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that the European Court's ruling permitted the United Kingdom to lay down quality standards for imported products. He said that there would have to be subordinate legislation to specify standards enabling sampling and other protective measures to ensure that imported UHT milk was of the same quality as domestic produce.
The Milk Marketing Board for Northern Ireland argues in its paper about the serious contaminant chlostridium botulinum which produces the most lethal toxin known to man. It is not normally found in British milk but it is found in the soil and if hygiene during production and processing is not of a high standard, milk can be contaminated by the heat resistant spores of that extremely dangerous organism. The board recommends that the required heat treatment be raised to 140 deg C for two seconds. That is the same as is required for UHT cream and UHT milk-based drinks in Britain. I do not understand why one standard should apply to domestic milk and another to the imported product.
The board points out the seriousness of the position on frozen pasteurised cream and says that such cream represents an even greater risk. It also says:
Cows can secrete the foot and mouth virus in milk for several days before showing clinical signs of the disease and therefore imports of pasteurised cream means that not only is there a risk of bringing a virus into this country but also a risk of it being spread widely across the country before its presence is detected. Freezing has no effect on the survival of bacteria and viruses.
The board also says that foot and mouth disease is endemic in many of the countries from which the imported products will come. That is a vital point for Northern Ireland. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, who had responsibility for agriculture in Northern Ireland, is well aware of the situation in Ulster.
The importation of raw milk from the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland also exposes cattle in Northern Ireland to considerable health risks. I am well aware that the small imports from Donegal to Leckpatrick have been carefully controlled. However, the new regulations open the door wide.
The Minister intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East and suggested that health standards in the Republic were equal to those in Northern Ireland. The paper from the Milk Marketing Board for Northern Ireland states:
Some progress on control has been made and at present the incidence of Brucellosis in Northern Ireland is almost zero, and while TB is still a problem the Northern Ireland position in relation to the eradication of both of these diseases is very much better than that which obtains in the Republic of Ireland … The extension of the existing importation from Donegal to one centre near to the border with the Republic to other centres throughout Northern Ireland from all parts of the Republic must seriously undermine the attempts which have been made to eradicate both Brucellosis and Tuberculosis from Northern Ireland.

Mr. Clement Freud: Quite apart from contamination and health risks, do not the people of the Six Counties share the views of the rest of the people of the United Kingdom that the taste of UHT is quite foul?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is Utterly Horribly Tasting.
In its wisdom, and after much debate, this House set up the Northern Ireland Assembly, which was given the responsibility of scrutinising proposed legislation. Yet this legislation did not come before the Agriculture Committee of the Assembly, of which I am chairman. Another hon. Member who hopes to speak later is also a member of that committee. In a letter that was hastily delivered to the Northern Ireland Assembly, Lord Mansfield, the Minister in charge, said:

The Ulster Farmers' Union, the Milk Marketing Board for Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Dairy Trade Federation and the Ulster Farm Bottlers' Association have been made aware of the intent of the regulations and are content.
All those organisations have been in touch with us, and not one is content. They are all protesting the regulations and are making it clear that they are completely opposed to them.
How will the Minister police these regulations along a border which the security forces cannot protect from the bringing in of arms, bombs and other terrorist equipment? He should name the three ports of entry.

Mr. Butler: I think it would be helpful if I were to tell the hon. Gentleman that the three ports of entry will be the port of Belfast and the frontier posts of Newry and Armagh. They will be useful in ensuring that there is limited access. Of course, there is little that can be done, as he knows better than I, to prevent the sort of traffic, both of animals and goods, that occurs across the border from time to time.

Rev. Ian Paisley: When the hon. Gentleman talks about Armagh he should define where that entry post is. There is no entry post actually in the city of Armagh because it is not on the border. Where in county Armagh will the milk come in? Is it to be Crossmaglen or some other place? The Minister will have to come clean with the House and tell us exactly where it is. He did admit that there is a problem. If there is not proper policing and raw milk comes in, it will have a detrimental effect on the high standards that he knows prevail in the milk industry in Northern Ireland.
The dairy industry is very important to the economy of Northern Ireland. It does not need the Minister slamming it. Instead, it needs his defence and support at this critical time when jobs are at stake.

Mr. Thomas Torney: I must declare an interest in that I am sponsored to the House by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, which is very much involved because the import of this milk will cause much unemployment among our members and among members of the Transport and General Workers Union, with which we share the mass of trade unionists who work in the dairy industry.
I listened carefully to the Minister's statement and I could not help feeling amazement at the naivety of what he was telling us or his lack of understanding or knowledge of the working of the milk distribution industry. In his decision to include sterilised milk and frozen pasteurised cream with ultra heat treated milk, the Minister has taken upon himself a grave responsibility. I wonder if he has briefed himself properly on the industry with which he is meddling. What he has done so far will cause the disintegration of the industry. Does he realise that the liquid milk market represents 9 per cent. of the retail food index and that the annual retail value of the industry is £2,500 million? I hope the Minister is listening to this, because he may learn something.
Each person in the United Kingdom uses 4·5 pints of milk per week; that is 12 pints of milk per household. There is a daily delivery of 33 million pints of milk to 16 million homes. According to a survey done not by the Socialists but by the Dairy Trade Federation, 98 per cent. of customers are satisfied with the delivery service. If the


Minister does not wipe the industry out at a stroke he will seriously weaken it and certainly cause considerable unemployment among its workers.
The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) chided the Opposition for being unpatriotic. No one could suggest that the Dairy Trade Federation is Socialist, and it is very much opposed to the regulations that the Minister is introducing. It represents 4,500 dairy companies and co-ops throughout England and Wales. Likewise, the Milk Marketing Board is hardly Socialist. It is as opposed as I am to the orders. The Minister does not appear to care about the 75,000 full-time workers in the milk industry—those in distribution, the roundsmen, the supervisors and those in the dairies. [Interruption.] There are obviously other Conservative Members who do not understand the implications of the orders on our dairy industry. They think that I am speaking rubbish.
A large proportion of the 75,000 employed in the industry will be thrown out of work by the loss of the doorstep delivery system. I know that Conservative Members find that fact hard to swallow, especially the Minister. He is a shrine-worshipping admirer of the Common Market. He does not care that it is interfering with our industry and that British jobs will be lost.
The Minister has not thought the matter through. I wonder whether he has been under pressure from Cabinet, or whether we are trading off milk to secure concessions in another area of the EC. Perhaps the Minister will tell us that, or perhaps he will not.
The Parliamentary Secretary stated clearly on 10 May that the orders, to which we agreed almost on the nod, would apply only to UHT milk. Why has there been such a drastic change in Government policy? Why are sterilised milk and pasteurised cream now included? Why has the Minister sold out? Why has there been a change of policy with a change of Minister?
Sterilised milk will seriously damage the daily doorstep delivery system. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said earlier that 36 per cent. of people in his area use sterilised milk. I know that in Bradford about 20 per cent. of doorstep delivery is sterilised milk. A breakdown in the daily delivery system will cause unemployment. Jobs will be lost not only in distribution but right back to the farming industry.
It is interesting to note that where sterilised milk is used more, in areas such as Birmingham and Bradford and most of the north of England, there is considerable unemployment. In my constituency, unemployment is higher than the national average. People would prefer to buy their milk from the milkman and have it delivered on the doorstep, but if in the shops or at the supermarket imported milk is cheaper by 2p, 3p, 4p or 5p a pint, they will buy that milk because they cannot afford the higher price. People want to pay less in times of mass unemployment.
I do not know how the Minister can bury his head in the sand and say that the milk tastes nasty. Of course sterilised milk does not taste nice. I do not like it. The dog belonging to the former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food did not like it either. The right hon. Gentleman told us that. [HON. MEMBERS: "That was UHT."] I know that it was UHT. Sterilised milk does not taste nice either.
If one's husband is out of work, and probably one's teenage children as well, one will try to save some coppers by walking down to the supermarket to buy the milk. That

is where the rub will come. It will mean the breakdown of our daily delivery system. In most of the country it will mean considerable unemployment.
The Minister does not seem to have considered that the economics of the milk distribution system is such that it needs only a small loss of a pint here and a pint there to make it unviable. The cost of delivering milk to the doorstep is so high that, as soon as a few pints here and a few pints there are lost, the system becomes unviable and the delivery system stops.
I am certain that the Minister will live to regret his action that he has taken. I only hope that when the regulations go to another place they are thrown out lock, stock and barrel. I hope that Conservative Members will not just pay lip service to their opposition to the Government's proposals, but will come into the Lobby with us against the regulations.

Sir Hector Monro: This is not the first time that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) has ruined his case by exaggerating. It is sad that he bandied about figures that he could not substantiate.
I am concerned as much as anyone about the production and sale of British milk, whether it is fresh milk, cream or manufactured milk. I am interested in the producers, the dairy farmers and the manufacturing plants and, of course, doorstep deliveries. Moreover, we are all concerned about jobs in the milk industry. Therefore, one does not welcome the regulations, but one must accept—the Opposition do not seem to be prepared to do so— that there is no alternative to introducing the regulations if we are to abide by the European Court——

Mr. Torney: I do not agree. Why not go to the European Court again?

Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman has already spent too much time nattering. I wish that he would shut up.
Our objective should be, not to listen to the gloom and doom of the Opposition, but to follow the example of my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills), who highlighted the super qualities of British fresh milk and British dairy products, which are real value for money. The housewife should always put them first and not contemplate foreign imports of UHT.
We must not be afraid of an inferior imported product. We must go out and sell our product, which is the finest that can be produced. We can sell it on its own merits and also maintain our excellent door-to-door delivery service. I believe that it is possible for it to continue, with all the advantages that hon. Members mentioned. It provides a social service. My morning paper is delivered each day by the milkman.
There is no alternative to accepting the regulations. The pass was sold by the Labour Government in 1977, but Labour Members have kept remarkably quiet about their deep and distant past and their failure to stand up then for our British dairy product. The judgment of the European Court has made it essential for the Minister to bring in these regulations. Consequentially, the sterilised milk and frozen pasteurised cream that has, in any event, been coming in during the past seven years will be allowed in, in full.
We must concentrate, not on the decision that we have had to take, but on making certain that the regulations are


carried out as stringently as possible and that we can be certain that the rules laid down for heat treatment and hygiene are strictly enforced on the milk that comes in.
I am interested in the number of ports that have been mentioned for entry points for the products, and I was thinking earlier that I wish that they were all north of Lerwick.
I should like the Minister to comment a little further on the uncertainties that we all have about the heat treatment, the temperature and the time for which it must stay at that temperature. I hope that he will re-emphasise that he is completely satisfied that the treatment recommended and enforced by the regulations will clear this country from any danger of foot and mouth. If he could say that again firmly, that would be most helpful.
I appreciate as much as anybody the enormous trouble that the Milk Marketing Board, the National Farmers Unions in the home countries and the dairy trade have taken to give advice to the Minister about the regulations, and I am glad that he has listened to our representations and, where possible, fulfilled them. The message tonight should be, "Get out and sell our home products to defeat the imports that could come into the country because of these regulations."
I do not think that we shall be flooded with UHT milk from the continent. The British housewife has more sense than to be conned by this evil-tasting liquid from the Continent. The Milk Marketing Board has already accepted this tremendous challenge and has many new products under consideration, which it is developing and which will be welcomed by the housewife when they come on the market. In this way, we shall help to reduce the supply of surplus milk in Europe. [HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] These new products will help to deal with increased production. It is a challenge to the British dairy industry, and one that can be won.

Miss Joan Maynard: The Minister is asking the House once again to capitulate to the Common Market, and that is a disgrace. He talked about the law of the land, but this is not the law of this land but the law of the EC. So much has been lost of our sovereignty that we do not make our laws; they are made in the EC.
The Minister talked about widening choice, but this action will not do that. The loss of the doorstep delivery will narrow, not widen, choice. This debate highlights yet again what a disaster it was for the British people that we ever joined the EC. We think of what it has cost the British taxpayer in contributions to the common agricultural policy and in higher food prices, when we could have bought more cheaply on world markets. We think of what it has done to the steel industry in the city part of which I represent.
The tragedy is that tonight it is the turn of the dairy industry, and the House is being treated poorly because now the imports start coming in; we should have had this debate earlier. Obviously this action will be good for the rest of the Common Market. After all, they, not us, have a surplus of milk and they want to unload it on to our market. The step we are taking could affect the jobs of

farmers and farm workers. Some dairy farmers have already been paid to leave the industry, but there is no compensation, I regret to say, for farm workers.

Mr. Corbett: They have been paid to leave for only five years.

Miss Maynard: My hon. Friend is right; having taken a golden handshake, the farmers can come back after five years and start up again in the dairy industry. The jobs of tanker drivers, those employed in the bottle industry, those who work on the electric vehicles and the milkmen are all at risk. Many things are at stake, not least the interest of the consumer, who depends greatly on the doorstep delivery. As others have said, the old, the disabled and the sick are particularly dependent on this service, especially the old in rural areas who do not have motor cars but only an expensive bus service, if they have a bus at all. How they will manage if the doorstep delivery goes I shudder to think. Thus, the rural communities, the consumer generally and the people directly involved with the industry will be the sufferers.
Reference has been made to USDAW and the campaign that it has been running. USDAW and the Transport and General Workers Union have tried to alert people to the threat to the doorstep delivery. I regret that the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) is not in his place, because he did not seem to think that we should be alerting people to the dangers that we say exist. He does not appear to be proud of what we are doing tonight; he wants this measure introduced by stealth. That would be the wrong way to pass legislation. I have always been opposed to our membership of the Common Market and feel therefore that I have every right to speak against the regulations.
I was glad to see a big and effective lobby of Parliament on 1 November against the importation of UHT milk. In other words, some of us have done our best to alert people to the dangers. At present, UHT milk accounts for only 1 per cent. of retail milk sales in Britain. Sterilised milk is a different proposition and the figures for that vary from 10 per cent. to 30 per cent. for different parts of the country.
We must not forget the health question; foot and mouth and TB are endemic in the rest of the EC, and I believe that milk imports could spread infection here, particularly as frozen pasteurised cream has been included, because freezing does not kill bacteria.
UHT milk has been cleared safe and healthy, but is it? A recent DHSS booklet recommends that the temperature of UHT should be raised from the current 132 deg. to 140 deg. C and that the time of treatment should be extended from one to two seconds. The DHSS believes that failure to extend the treatment in that way could risk botulism being brought into this country. Those are serious matters and I hope that when he replies the Minister will deal with them. I hope that we shall be told why the Minister agreed that sterilised milk and frozen pasteurised cream should also come in.
The number of ports involved should preferably be restricted to one, because I should like the products to be blocked there. That would give us a breathing space in which to attempt to change the regulations. We could then use our stick, which is that we shall not continue to pay our huge contributions to the common agricultural policy


if such action is taken against our industry and consumers. Thus, it would be easier to deal with the problem if the number of ports was restricted to one.
However, in the final analysis, the problem will be solved only by Britain coming out of the Common Market; and the sooner the better.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I should like to take the middle way in this debate. The fact that a foreign court is attacking one of our greatest institutions says much for the crassness of aspects of the EC.
I agreed with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) said about preserving our doorstep deliveries, but for the past two hours much of the debate has been fought in an atmosphere of unreality. To listen to the Oppositon one would think that in this case Britannia was throwing herself at a French lover, whereas in fact she is tied to a post and being raped against her will. We have no choice in this matter, given the generalised principles set out at the court hearing. We must abide by the regulations and that is why, unwilling and with a heavy heart, I shall vote for them tonight.
We should not be complacent. I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). It is not simply a question of the housewife making a market choice. She will be looking at a different product. Our fresh milk is characterised by being delivered on the doorstep, fresh in a bottle. However, there are now to be metric cartons. The product will be very different.
The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) came in to the Chamber about two hours later than the rest of us and informed us that UHT milk was horrible, and I have to admit that he is right. However, the sort of UHT that will be available in six months' time will not be that horrible, because it will be low-fat milk.
In about six months' time, I envisage advertisements on television showing a housewife saying that she cannot tell the difference between UHT and fresh milk, just as she cannot tell the difference between Stork margarine and butter. Therefore, we face a grave danger. It is not good enough to say that we can rely on the great British dairy industry. We must rely on more sustained marketing from the Daily Trade Federation.
There is also a role for the Government, and if the Government cannot speak out, at least a Back Bencher like me can. Why cannot we do what the French do? Why cannot we do what the French did at Poitiers? I must take up a point made by the National Farmers Union in its excellent statement. Despite the strict controls and regulations that we have heard about tonight, so-called fresh pasteurised cream is on sale in Harrods. Yesterday I discovered that Kerrygold UHT milk is or sale in London hotels. That stuff is already getting into the country. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will put more resources into our ports in an endeavour to slow down the flood of UHT milk.
Let us be as ruthless and tough as the French. Let us take advantage of section 29, which gives us power to consider the health aspects of the product. We have already heard about botulism. I have been told that if UHT milk is heated to 140 deg C it is undrinkable, not only by humans but by dogs. The Minister said that he would look at the issue, but he must do so straight away. We must be like the prudent business man building up a business. We

must be prepared to avoid, if not evade, tax. In working to rule on these regulations we must obey the law to the letter and preserve one of our greatest national institutions.

Mr. Robin Corbett: We might as well meet head-on the conclusion of the Agriculture Committee in its first report for the 1979–80 Session in which it went into the likely impact of the importation of foreign milk. The last sentence in paragraph 129 states:
In principle, however, we favour giving consumers the greatest practicable choice of what to buy and how to buy it.
That has some semblance of appeal. This milk-sop Minister is now over-zealously proposing to threaten the operation of that choice. The certain effect of these measures—there is no point in dodging it; this is not an exaggeration — will be to damage and to reduce the frequency of our daily doorstep deliveries.
We are told that, on the orders of the Common Market, we must admit UHT milk; but why, on earth, should we admit sterilised milk? It is as though someone stopped the Minister to ask him whether he had a penny and he said, "Take a pound." The Minister wrote me a letter on 16 November dealing with this point. The right hon. Gentleman told the House that, if we must deal with UHT milk, we might as well throw in the rest, and end the matter in one sitting.
Several hon. Members have said that the argument is not solely about UHT milk. This is where the Minister has gone overboard. He has volunteered to include sterilised milk in this regulation. Page 2 of a brief that has been ably prepared for us by the House of Commons Library states:
It should be emphasised that the case was confined to UHT milk".
The brief refers to the judgment handed down by the European Court. I ask the Minister to think, even at this late stage, about sterilised milk. It is no good saying that sterilised milk accounts for 1 per cent. of the national market and 6 per cent. of the market in England and Wales. I was told in a letter from the Greater Midlands Cooperative Society Ltd. that in its area sterilised milk sales are more than 36 per cent. of all milk sales.
The Minister knows that an alteration of 1, 2 or 3 per cent. in the quantity of milk carried on the milk rounds, which have been carefully built up and sustained over the years, will make a difference. During debates on the egg market, the responsible Minister unfortunately told a meeting of egg producers that they should not be upset about French egg imports because they amounted to only 2 per cent. of the egg market. However, that small percentage upset the egg producers.
The Chief Executive of the Great Midlands Cooperative Society Ltd. Mr. Henn, underlined this point by stating:
the Minister has extended the regulations unnecessarily to permit the import of sterilised milk".
It is no good the Minister saying that he is anticipating what might happen the day after next; he is too fond of doing that.
If the Government believe that we must have this measure, why do they not try for some transitional arrangement? The Minister of State replied to my letter to him:
I must make it clear that the suggestion that the Commission would have been prepared to agree to a transitional period is unfounded.


Never mind the Commission. Will the Minister be kind enough to tell us whether we asked other member states for a transitional period and if so when and with what result? Sections of the industry believe that it may have been available. I put it no higher than that. The facts seem to prove that such an arrangement was not sought by the Department.

Mr. Jopling: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman recalls it, but I mentioned exactly that point. I said that I had good reason to doubt whether the Commission would have accepted any further delay in the nine months between the court's decision and the laying of the regulations. The Commission pressed us extremely hard during that nine months. I do not believe that we could have gone any further without laying the regulations.

Mr. Corbett: I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. We seem to be the only country within the Community to jump through hoops of fire the minute the decision arrives from the European Court. We do not simply do what it tells us; we give it more than it rules that we should.

Mr. Jopling: If the hon. Gentleman is going to press that point he should remember that the court ruled in February and we did not lay the regulations for nine months. He will recall that when his Government were in power they had a pig support scheme which was challenged in the same court. The right hon. Gentleman, the then Minister, complied with the court within three weeks.

Mr. Corbett: No one is arguing that we should not ultimately respect the rulings of the European Court. Suppose that the boot were on the other foot and this was a ruling against the French. Would they have moved so quickly and widely to open doors to imports from this country? Of course they would not.
Paragraph 127 of the Select Committee report stated:
we start from our strongly held belief that door-to-door delivery renders a valuable service to the community which it is highly desirable to preserve. It is a great convenience to many, particularly in scattered rural communities".
That point is extremely important, but the Committee might have added that it is also true of the village communities that exist in the heart of our inner cities such as Birmingham. It is important there for the elderly, the disabled and the lonely to have daily doorstep deliveries, because apart from the postman who delivers the giro cheque—received by the many thousands of people who have been forced out of work—the only regular caller is the milkman. Milkmen and women perform an extremely valuable service.
In its evidence to the Select Committee the Dairy Trade Federation at paragraph 119 said that
consumption of liquid milk would decline by as much as 40 per cent; and that the effect of even a relatively small quantity would increase the unit cost of the delivery system to the detriment of its maintenance.
How can the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends ignore such advice? At other times they cannot agree quickly enough with what the Dairy Trade Federation, the National Farmers Union and other such bodies say. In this case, after considered evidence to a Select Committee a Government Department says, "Never mind. We know best. Forget it all. Trust us."
In plain English, the Dairy Trade Federation and the trade unions involved are saying — it cannot be disproved, and I do not want to exaggerate the position —that if UHT and sterilised milk from abroad get a toehold in this market they will start to chip away at the regularity and frequency of daily doorstep deliveries. I am not saying that they will disappear overnight. It may be that instead of deliveries on six days, they will be cut to five, from five to four, and then down to three. Once we start on that slope, despite the pious hopes of the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills), the rot will set in on these rounds.

Mr. Hardy: Does my hon. Friend realise that it is inevitable that within a relatively short time we shall have a milk surplus similar to that in France. Is it imagined that the French will be as prepared to take our surplus milk as we seem prepared to take theirs?

Mr. Corbett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I listened to the contribution by the Minister, but it seems that he has not considered the matter.
France and other EC countries which are wallowing in a milk surplus — I emphasise that we are not — can almost afford, providing that they cover their transport costs, to dump the stuff in Britain. They have had their greedy eyes on our differently organised liquid milk market for years and have been working out ways of how to enter it. My complaint is that we have given them the keys to the gate. Britain has the finest liquid milk market in the world. It is the envy of Europe, and the Minister is prepared to gamble with its future.
The Minister was asked to be more specific about the way in which the regulations will be tested and policed. We have experience of other areas in which the Minister is concerned, such as the export of live food animals. He has been unable to satisfy the House that the regulations, however comprehensively drawn, are being adequately policed. How many extra staff will be employed in the ports of entry? Will there be any extra staff? What type of training will they receive? Answers are required to these questions.
We must be concerned, although we do not have a responsibility in the matter, about the conditions on the farms from which the milk originates. That point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes), about which the Minister made light.
Is the Minister asking consumers to put their trust in a completed form which will be presented at the port of entry, amidst all the other duties for which the new staff will be responsible, a staff which will not have received adequate and proper training? How many consignments will be involved, what will be their frequency and by whom will they be inspected? We deserve answers to those questions.
Strong doubts and criticism have been expressed by Conservative Members about the regulations. I appreciate that the matter is well-understood, but I shall repeat it. There are no second chances when dealing with the regulations. If the regulations are passed, they will come into operation. If Conservative Members have doubts about the wisdom of the regulations and to where they may lead, the doubt belongs on the side of the consumer and daily doorstep deliveries. Those Conservative Members should take their courage in their hands and go into the same Lobby as Opposition Members.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock (Batty and Spen): I contribute to the debate as a Member of this place and as a housewife. As a housewife, who is the person in mast households with responsibility for balancing the family budget, I look to buy quality food at the best possible price. I look also for certain standards of service for the community. The delivery of milk to our doorstep is a necessity. The British milkman provides a social service for the sick and the elderly by ensuring the supply of a basic food item and at the same time keeping a watchful eye on their health and mobility.
I suspect, from European and American experience, that should doorstep deliveries disappear, milk consumption will fall. The delivery of milk to the doorstep—to about 16 million doorsteps every day —encourages the young housewife with young children to use milk as a means of providing a balanced and basic diet. If milk did not arrive daily on their doorsteps, I am convinced that the diets of many young children would suffer. That is something that we cannot allow to happen.
I am seriously concerned about the way that milk imports have been handled. I clearly understand the ruling given by the European Court of Justice that British health and hygiene regulations can no longer prevent the import of UHT milk. As we are in Europe and committed to it, we must comply with the court's ruling, but that is as far as we need to go. At the best of times UHT is a poorly flavoured product, and I understand that it has about 2 per cent. of the British liquid milk market. It is a milk that is not really to the British taste. I know from my own experience that British UHT milk is no better and will have no greater attraction to the British housewife.
The Minister need have gone no further than the original regulations because we could have complied with the European court ruling. The British housewife would have rejected the product and British farmers would have been moderately happy with a challenge to a small part of their market. By introducing regulations allowing the import of sterilised milk and frozen pasteurised cream, the Minister is taking steps that he need not take—steps not required by the European court. Sterilised milk, with a 7 per cent. share of the national market, has much greater significance in the west midlands, Tyneside and parts of Yorkshire and Lancashire, where it has a much larger share of the market, than elsewhere. In these parts of Britain milk producers and dairymen will come under pressure unnecessarily. It is in these areas that sterilised milk has traditionally been sold from the retail milk float or from the corner shop. With the regulations we are to get an invasion of French and other European sterilised milk, which will head inevitably towards the large supermarkets, to the serious disadvantage of the milk round and the corner shop.
I suspect that French sterilised milk will be cheaper, at least to begin with. French farmers' co-operatives will embark on a marginal costing exercise for an export market that will not affect profit margins in France. They will take the view that cheap sterilised milk is a better bet than making butter or milk powder, which is the usual use for this milk. Inevitably, our supermarkets will take the opportunity to use French sterilised milk as a loss leader by selling at or near the price they pay for it, so grabbing a larger slice of the British milk market from the dairies. That is something that they have wanted to do for years.
On the face of things, the British housewife should be happy. She should be able to buy cheap sterilised milk, but I do not suppose that she will be able to do so for long. The French farmers will get greedy. The British supermarkets will become tired of handling large volumes of milk that take up valuable shelf space for a poor margin, and up will go the prices. In the meantime, milk rounds will have gone and the corner shop will no longer sell milk. For these reasons, the Minister should reconsider the regulations.
I cannot understand the logic of allowing the import of frozen pasteurised cream from other parts of Europe when it has been arriving for some years from the Republic of Ireland. The housewife finds frozen cream a useful item to have in the freezer, and when it is produced from British milk it is obviously a first-class product. However, when produced from European milk there must be some doubt. The regulations, by implication, continue to ban the import of pasteurised milk, and as the process of pasteurisation has a similar effect on the bacteriological safety of milk and cream, with or without freezing, there must be a potential health hazard from imported pasteurised cream.
The regulations need more consideration. I wish to have the best value for the British housewife, continued delivery to our doorsteps, and the safety of imported milk products. That is impossible under the regulations as they are framed.

Mr. James Nicholson: The Government's decision to allow the importation of UHT milk into the United Kingdom will have serious and far-reaching effects on the milk industry for many years. It is hard enough to accept the importation of UHT milk, but, as the regulations also propose the importation of frozen pasteurised cream, they are unacceptable to me and to my colleagues.
The British and Northern Ireland housewife has come to expect the doorstep delivery of milk as part of her way of life, which is quite right, since it is fresh and of high quality. It is helpful to both the urban and the rural dweller, and perhaps the rural dweller gains most benefit because he does not have equal access to shops and supermarkets. The service is also of great benefit to the elderly and the disabled. Any move to destroy the service must be opposed vigorously and never allowed to reappear. Unfortunately, only a small reduction in doorstep deliveries will make them uneconomical.
The effect of the regulations in Northern Ireland will be great, because not only will we be open to imported UHT milk from all members of the Community but our markets will be easy prey because of our long frontier with the Irish Republic. The Government's decision to allow the importation of UHT milk, although damaging to Northern Ireland industry, could have been understood in the light of the European Court's judgment, but I cannot understand what possessed the Minister to allow the importation of pasteurised cream into Northern Ireland. It will have a disastrous effect on our disease-free status, especially as cream will be admitted from countries that have endemic foot and mouth disease. Northern Ireland is extremely proud of its achievements in disease control, and I pay tribute to the Department of Agriculture for the role that


it has played in that. However, it was not achieved without great expense and sacrifice, and these proposals have thrown away all that has been achieved.
An illustration of our success is the brucellosis eradication scheme. To the best of my knowledge, only four out of the many herds in Northern Ireland are restricted because of brucellosis. That status is worth preserving and protecting. The Republic of Ireland has no such achievements, and the other European countries are even worse, especially with the dreaded foot and mouth disease. At present the only raw milk imported into Northern Ireland, as the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said, comes from one creamery in the Republic and is for manufacturing purpose only.
Will the Minister clarify further his statement on the three points of entry into Northern Ireland? He mentioned the port of Belfast and also Newry and Armagh. The last named is the name of my constituency, and I can understand Newry being one of the points of entry, but I do not know how Armagh can be one.

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman knows that the frontier post at Middletown is known as the Armagh post.

Mr. Nicholson: With all due respect to the Minister, that is the first time that I have ever heard Middletown called the Armagh border crossing post.

Mr. William Ross: The creamery that was importing the milk is close to Londonerry on the Donegal-Tyrone border. That means that if the milk is imported through the points of entry that have been named it must be carted right across the Province before it reaches the creamery.

Mr. Nicholson: I welcome my hon. Friend's valuable comment. What he says is true. The milk will have to be driven right through the country to reach the entry point at Middletown.
If the regulation is implemented, lorries will be travelling all over Northern Ireland. How will controls be exercised if a tanker of imported milk is mixed with milk produced in Northern Ireland in a milk silo? The regulation is a recipe for disaster.
The regulation states that raw milk can be imported from the Republic of Ireland when the Department is satisfied that such milk, or any skimmed milk derived from it, will not be used for sale for direct consumption as liquid milk or cream. It would therefore appear that pasteurised cream derived from this imported raw milk can be used for sale for human consumption as cream. If that is not so a processor in the Republic of Ireland can produce frozen pasteurised cream and sell it in Northern Ireland, but a processor in Northern Ireland cannot produce frozen pasteurised cream from the same milk and sell it in his own country. That will have serious consequences for the Northern Ireland milk industry.
Inquiries that I made recently into the effectiveness of freezing from a bacteriological point of view all point to the same answer—freezing has no bactericidal effect. Nor does it have any effect on viruses. If imported frozen pasteurised cream contains pathogens, its being frozen will not afford any protection. Indeed, when the cream is thawed the organisms will be reactivated and multiply rapidly. Does the Minister intend to allow the importation of pasteurised cream? If so, how will he stop the

importation of pasteurised milk? If he allows the importation of the one he will have lost the argument if he does not want to allow the importation of the other.

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman's point about frozen heat treated cream is important. I should like to add to what I told the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross). Frozen pasteurised cream will not be allowed in from countries where the health status or the heat treatment is in doubt. As to foot and mouth disease, I can confirm that, for Northern Ireland, that product will not be allowed in from countries where foot and mouth is endemic.

Mr. Nicholson: What control or monitoring will there be of imported milk, in whatever form? I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) that other European countries have excellent standards of hygiene. I do not wish to cast aspersions on any other European country, but it is widely accepted in Northern Ireland that standards of hygiene in the United Kingdom as a whole, including Northern Ireland, are the highest of all and that the milk produced in the Republic of Ireland comes nowhere near that standard.
We are told that there will be designated crossing points, but will they be constantly manned, or will there be a spot check system which will not be fully effective? Will the Minister assure the House that any certificates issued by the Department will be effective and not just window-dressing, so that they will improve the high standard of disease control in Northern Ireland rather than dismantle all that has been achieved?
I am told that at no point in the consultations between interested parties were the implications of imported frozen cream seriously discussed. I implore the Minister to think again about the implications of the regulations, especially in regard to frozen cream, because that is the nub of the problem. Will he consider the serious consequences for the dairy industry of the United Kingdom as a whole and Northern Ireland in particular?

Mr. Colin Shepherd: I am delighted to be able to get into the debate at this late stage. I shall try to finish by 10.50 pm when I understand that the winding-up speeches are to begin.
The debate has been fascinating, especially for the magnificent rhetoric from Opposition Members. I wish that they had been such strong and avid critics when their right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) was sliding through the moves which allowed the pass to be sold and completedly undermined the Government's position. It is difficult to launch an attack when standing on quicksand, and the Opposition's attack had the power that one expects from people in that position. My right hon. Friend the Minister was dealt a Yarborough and he deserves the sympathy of the House for having to try to make tricks when there are very few to be made. We must now give as much constructive thought as we can to finding ways to resolve these issues.
Leaving aside the schizophrenia and selective recollection of the Opposition, I assure my right hon. Friend that I shall support him in the Lobby on this, but that does not mean that I am not critical. I am worried about the UHT specification. I understand that the dairy industry would accept the higher specification. I hope that


that is so and that the Minister will press the case and secure the higher specification because I believe that it is right.
Much has been said about frozen pasteurised cream. I especially welcomed the statement of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, that there would be no imports if the health status of the exporting country was in doubt. I hope that that is correct because I never want to witness again the devastation caused by foot and mouth disease in 1967, when such a vast proportion of the country's beef herd was destroyed with all the ghastly funeral pyres and burials involved. We must ensure that that never happens again.
Chemical content has not been mentioned so far. Are the batches imported capable of being identified so that if a sample is found to be below specification every part of that batch can be returned? One worries about residual pesticides and antibiotics in products from countries in which the regulations may not be so strict.
No speech would be complete without mentioning the doorstep delivery. In my view, it is under attack even now from our own dairy industry. People in that industry are queueing up and falling over themselves to tender supermarkets for the supply of fresh, pasteurised milk which undercuts the doorstep delivery.
That is the dilemma facing the dairy trade and the country—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Why compound it?"] If the damage is being done now, what happens is immaterial. We must take steps now. Marketing is the answer. The challenge lies with the National Dairy Council, the Milk Marketing Board, the Dairy Trade Federation and the Glass Manufacturers' Federation. They must come together to devise a PR campaign that makes it clear that if we do not use the doorstep delivery system, we shall lose it.
It is no good people experimenting and saying, "I shall not use it this week. It is cheaper in the supermarket", because if they do, the service will disappear. That is the message to get across. Anything else is a red herring.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: This has been a lengthy debate which has been significant for many things, not least for the fact that the Government have been supported by only one hon. Member who did not have a pecuniary interest in doing so or had not benefited by obtaining some ennoblement for a previous display of loyalty.
Virtually every hon. Member has been dismayed at the Minister's feeble attempt to make the best of a bad job. Our misgivings about membership of the Community have been underlined by the fact that we have considered these regulations under the negative procedure. As a result, we have been afforded no opportunity to amend them.
The regulations are the result of rushed legislation, which we now know to have been passed on a misunderstanding, because some of the areas that we had assumed would not be considered are now included.
In the dying days of the last Parliament, the Government felt that unless they acted speedily in response to the judgment of 8 February, something even worse would befall us. We can only surmise what our French friends would have done had they been faced with a similar challenge from the European Court. I doubt whether they would have acted with the same celerity.
We must decide whether United Kingdom systems of controls will be adequate, as paragraph 29 of the judgment said, to protect the health of our consumers. Our contention is that they are inadequate to meet the responsibilities placed on the United Kingdom Government. We shall endanger the economic viability of the British dairy industry, which at the end of the day is the only sure and safe defence of the health of the British consumer.
The manner in which the judgment has been phrased inhibits the right of the British Government to take reasonable precautions to protect the consumer by ensuring that the powers to insist on the reprocessing and repackaging of milk are not open to us. Had they been, many of the misgivings of the British glass manufacturers might well have been met. That would certainly have allayed the fears of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who was concerned about the production of glass bottles in his constituency.
We are not satisfied with the Minister's complacency or that of his office. In a letter of 24 June to the chief executive officer and general secretary of the Co-operative Union Limited, his office said:
I am sure the response you have received"—
this was a response to a petition which attracted more than 850,000 signatures in defence of the doorstep delivery service—
is a true reflection of the very strong measure of support among consumers for the continuation of doorstep deliveries of milk, and this should prove to be the system's greatest safeguard.
We have heard from the Minister this evening various statements like this. In the two speeches of support we have heard the reiteration of the humbug that somehow the traditional loyalty of the British consumer to the service will withstand any challenge. Yet we know that the dairy industry is on a knife edge and it will take only a small movement from one source to another, from British milk to imported milk, to make a tremendous difference to the fragile economic structure of the industry.
This is an efficient sector of agriculture. We drink more milk than any other part of the Community, apart from Ireland. We are all conscious of the fact that there will be more dumping of surpluses by continental producers. The skimmed milk we have heard about will be what is left after the cream has been removed for the production of butter for intervention buying. Continental producers will get rid of the milk which they cannot sell in their own countries by dumping it in the United Kingdom at the expense of British producers and at the end of the day of the British consumer as well. Once they have broken the back of the British dairy industry they will seek to raise prices.
We recognise that legal constraints are imposed upon the Government. Requests have been made for a transitional arrangement. We have heard from the Minister a feeble excuse that if we were to ask for a transitional arrangement nothing would happen, and we would probably end up in a worse position. Yet when the Transport and General Workers' Union met two of the commissioners, Mr. Tugendhat and Mr. Richard, in Brussels, Mr. Richard said that he was prepared to seek the agreement of other commissioners to lessen the impact of the new milk regime. We are told:
In that regard the discussion concentrated on a transitional period of, say, five years. His support"—
that is, Mr. Richard's support—


was conditional on obtaining the agreement of the UK Government to a transitional period. Unless the UK Government was prepared to support such a transitional period Mr. Richard felt that he had no chance of gaining support for the proposal in Europe.
We would be grateful if the Minister would tell us what he told Mr. Richard and whether he offered to back him in his attempt to defend the Britsh dairy industry by seeking the transitional period we need. If the Minister would care to intervene I would be happy; it might assist the smooth running of the debate. If instead he wishes to use his 20 minutes, then I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
The demand for these products is limited in many parts of the country. There is a limited demand for UHT milk. We are told that the British consumers are resistant to change, but, given the prevailing economic circumstances, when they are faced with a cheaper alternative people will initially buy UHT milk as an additive for tea and coffee. Then they will use it as a substitute for British milk with cereals and the like. One can only guess at the impact that UHT milk will have on institutional cooking and on the catering and baking industries. The denial of such opportunities to the small dairies, and even to the larger producer-processors, can only endanger a great number of our dairies and, ultimately, the retail dairies that are so dependent on their connections with producer-processors.
Many of my hon. Friends have spoken of the problems that will be created for the doorstep delivery system. We heard a courageous speech from the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), who showed such a lack of enthusiasm for the Government's proposals that she may join us in the Lobby. She said that the doorstep delivery was a unique social service. In many parts of the country it certainly provides an informal social service, on which many elderly people and single parents depend.
In Scotland doorstep deliveries are only about 50 per cent. of sales, and much is made of that fact. But the areas of low penetration mainly consist of tenements and multi-storey blocks that make delivery difficult. Throughout the country there is a tremendous dependence on the work of the milkmen. If the doorstep delivery system is removed, we could go down the same road as the Netherlands where, since 1967, milk consumption has fallen by 27 per cent. and the number of milkmen almost halved from 9,000 to 4,900. During the same period in the United Kingdom, the consumption of milk fell by less than 12 per cent.
We know that, because of demographic changes, consumption will fall in the near future. There are likely to be fewer children. We hope that they will drink more milk, but it will not be enough to sustain the present level of demand. We have a responsibility to consumers and to the protection of their health. That protection will be afforded through milk consumption.
If the doorstep delivery system is removed or considerably reduced, there will be a massive change in the fortunes of many of the co-operatives. I am a member of the Co-operative party, although not sponsored by it. I am conscious of the tremendous emphasis it places on its dairy activities. It is the largest farmer in the country. It is responsible for 25 per cent. of dairy produce. In some areas small, franchise dairy companies deliver co-op milk. The co-op plays a substantial role. It is right that my hon. Friends should seek to defend that organisation and come

to its assistance when it is under threat. It is right to point to the levels of unemployment that could be created by a change in the fortunes of the dairy industry.
But we also recognise that there are legal constraints. That is why we ask the Minister to reconsider a transitional period. Under article 30, the Government are running scared in case further proceedings take place. We want specific assurances that inspections will be robustly applied.
I have been given a copy of the Press Association tape, which states:
Milk rules may deter imports.
I do not know whether the individual who reported that was in the House when the Minister was speaking. He failed to convince many of his colleagues about the robust way in which the inspections would be applied.
We have heard that 17 ports in England and Wales and two ports in Scotland are to be used for access. Many of us are shocked that there should be so many access points. There has been a dramatic rundown in the support for many of the environmental health services provided by local authorities and so on because of local government cuts. Many of the ports may have great difficulties in meeting their responsibilities. It was suggested that people should go abroad to look at the point of production, and that we should go to the farms abroad and see what happens. That was pooh-poohed by the Minister. At the moment proper inspection facilities are made available in abattoirs on the continent. At one time inspectors even went to Argentina to inquire about the quality of the meat that was being imported into this country. One could suggest that if we can send inspectors to Argentina to look at the meat that we used to import, milk could be imported through Port Stanley if we wanted to do the job properly. The French have been meeting their obligations. The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) said that if we wanted to "do a Poitiers", it would be difficult for the national sponsors of the Union Laitière Normande to complain about the way in which their opponents were behaving.
The hygiene provisions have failed to convince the House that adequate protection of the British consumer will be provided through the regulations.

Mr. Butterfill: Does the hon. Gentleman know whether the co-operative movement has been prepared to give an undertaking that it will not sell UHT milk through any of its retail outlets?

Mr. O'Neill: If the hon. Gentleman had been here earlier, he would have had the opportunity to speak to the spokesman for the co-operative movement, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). I understand that it has plenty of milk that it could convert into UHT and sell if it wished, but from its own processing and production plants. That question does not arise. If the hon. Gentleman had done the House the courtesy of being here for most of the debate, he would have been in a better position to ask the question.
The Government's defence of frozen pasteurised cream is that we need a permanent and defensible regime, and we cannot afford to have any more alterations. However, we feel that the contrary is the case. In the past we allowed UHT cream and flavoured milk into the country without second treatment. It is argued that there is now no reason why we should not allow in UHT milk. A Ministry of


Agriculture. Fisheries and Food circular of 3 March 1976 said of the importation of UHT and cream and flavoured milk:
This proposed amendment would have no effect on existing arrangements relating to milk for liquid consumption.
The point is simple. The reason why the Dairy Trade Federation was prepared to go along with the deal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) was that it was clear that there would be no question of endangering the provision of milk for liquid consumption. No problems would arise. No such assurance has been, or can be, given by the Minister.
The fundamental weakness of the Government's case is in the regulations providing for fresh pasteurised cream. If one accepts the logic that if one has UHT cream, one must agree to have UHT milk — that is what the Government are arguing—it follows that if we agree to pasteurised cream, we agree to pasteurised milk. There are two possible scenarios. One is that the allowance and acceptance of UHT milk will result in a decline in pasteurised cream and milk, and the other is that the importation of pasteurised frozen cream will lead to pasteurised milk. Either way, we shall see the collapse of the United Kingdom pasteurised milk industry.
We said earlier that the regulations go further than what was agreed before the general election. The grudging consent that we granted did not extend to the range of options included in the regulations. There is now a danger to the financial framework of the dairy industry that did not exist before, and inadequate protection for the health of the consumer. The unhappiness of the House is shown by the almost total rejection of the regulations by almost every speaker tonight. We recognise that the regulations have been pushed through with indecent haste. If we believe in the protection of our industry, of the dairy workers, the processors and the farmers, we must prevent the dumping of continental milk in this country. To do that we must throw out the regulations.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are, I understand, the protector of the interests of Back Benchers. May I point out to you, and ask you to take this point back to Mr. Speaker, that 39 per cent. of the time of this debate will have been taken up by speeches from the Front Benches? Is that fair to the Back Benchers—particularly on the Government side of the House. because we are in a majority—who wish to express strong views on a subject in which they have taken a considerable interest for many years, and who wish to vote against the Government tonight?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that the hon. Gentleman was one of those on both sides of the House whose hope to speak was disappointed, and I shall convey his remarks to Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): I understand the frustration of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), because I found myself in that position on many occasions in the past. However, many issues have been raised in the debate, which make it necessary for me to reply to them, in fairness to those who have raised them. The speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister was prolonged by the fact that he gave way many times to the legitimate questions put to him.
I welcome the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) to the Front Bench, and congratulate him on his speech. I look forward to many exchanges with him in the future. The hon. Gentleman and I are agreed on five issues. The first, and I was glad that the hon. Gentleman said this at the outset of his speech, is that the Government and the House must abide by legal requirements and court decisions. The second is that we cannot use import restrictions for health reasons, made under the legal process, to achieve economic or other objectives. That is an important point, to which I shall refer in answer to some of the things urged upon us. The third is that we must accept UHT milk, although many of us agree that it has an awful taste, and it is not likely to appeal to the United Kingdom consumer.
The fourth point is the importance of the doorstep delivery, and I stress its importance. I understand the point, and agree with all those who emphasised the employment reasons for it, and the other industrial reasons, as did the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). I recognise, too, its importance to many consumers, and especially to those in need and to our senior citizens, a point to which several of my hon. Friends drew attention. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) singled out the importance of the doorstep delivery as a social service. I could continue to wax lyrical about the doorstep delivery, but I shall have to move on. However, all these important aspects of this service were emphasised in the debate.
I hope that we are agreed, certainly on the Government Benches, on the fifth point—the importance of selling the tremendous benefits of British fresh milk and my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) in a cogent and powerful speech, brought this point out. We must not sell our product short, because that helps none of us. Those are five points on which we can agree.

Mr. Alfred Morris: rose——

Mr. MacGregor: No, I will not give way because I have an enormous number of points to cover.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. MacGregor: No. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) made his speech and in fairness to other hon. Members—because I have much to say—I will not give way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am endeavouring to answer the debate. I have singled out the five points on which we are agreed — [Interruption.] —and if I am not interrupted I will answer the rest of the debate. I would like to go into detail on all the points that hon. Members have raised, but I shall not be able to do that through lack of time. I will therefore deal with three specific points now and go on to what I regard as the three key themes of the debate, and that will enable me to answer many other points.
The first of the specific points was raised by the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) who asked about allegations in a Farming News article. I am aware of that article and my Department is investigating the product, which I understand may be home-produced despite its name and label. The position on fresh pasteurised cream, if that is what it turns out to be, from abroad is clear. For animal health reasons, imports would be permitted only under the terms of a specific licence and no such licence has been issued.
Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) made allegations about certain aspects of the dairy trade. We have been hard pressed by a part of the dairy trade—as it was in confidence, it would be wrong to give details — to include in our regulations a general provision for new imports of raw milk for processing. It was illogical for certain sections of the dairy trade to do that at the same time as they were pressing for stricter controls elsewhere. My right hon. Friend had no hesitation in turning that request down.
The third point concerns the aspect raised by the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) about a transitional period. Although the commissioner to whom he referred may have favoured a transitional period, there is no evidence that he could have delivered a majority of the Commission in favour of it. But in any case, even if the Commission had been persuaded to agree to a transitional period, the court's judgment would not have been affected and we should have remained exposed to legal action by other member states and individual traders. Thus we had to move straight away.

Mr. O'Neill: rose——

Mr. MacGregor: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not giving way. I have much to say. For the reasons I have given, that was not the appropriate way to tackle the problem. We heard how the Labour Government responded within a short period to a court decision——

Mr. O'Neill: Did the present Government ask for a transitional period?

Mr. MacGregor: —and they did not ask. For all those reasons, it is right to go ahead with the regulations.
I come to the three key issues in the debate, and I shall answer them all. The first key theme has been the question why the Government have gone beyond just UHT. References have been made to the debate on 10 May 1983 when the Second Reading and further stages of the Importation of Milk Act, as it now is, were carried through the House. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said in that debate:
For those reasons"—
which were reasons of need to consult not only the Commission and member states but the domestic industry—
we are unable to give a detailed statement as to the contents of the regulations. However, their main effect"—
and that was the phrase—
will be to provide for the importation of UHT milk and cream and flavoured milk from member states subject to…requirements".—[Official Report, 10 May 1983; Vol. 42, c. 743.]
We had then to consider carefully the detailed regulations, and for the reaons that my right hon. Friend spelt out clearly, we concluded that the additional aspects had to be put in, and I shall deal with those because the first is sterilised milk. This has been criticised as going beyond the strict letter of the judgment, but as my right hon. Friend pointed out, our new regime needs to comply with the general principles of Community law and there are no legal or scientific arguments for excluding products that have been treated at 108 deg C for 55 minutes, which is at least as rigorous as the UHT process. The important point is that to seek to exclude them would have taken us

straight back, if the case had not been watertight, to the courts. Therefore, it was important for us to ensure that our case was as watertight as possible.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North made the point clearly that it would not be too long before the importation of pasteurised cream would lead to pasteurised milk coming into the country. I do not believe that that will be the case. Had we not drawn up these regulations in a watertight manner, so that they would stand up in the courts, it would not have been long before we were again challenged and we would have been on a difficult, slippery slope. It is important to our industry, the doorstep delivery services and others affected that we introduce regulations that stick. My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West referred to the possibility of a retaliation on our food products in other Community states if we were seen not to be playing the proper game according to the law.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North talked a great deal about frozen pasteurised cream—it may have been a slip of the tongue at the end of his speech to talk about fresh pasteurised cream—which has been criticised as a dangerous precedent for pasteurised milk. I do not believe that this is the case. The first problem that faced us is that imports of pasteurised cream had been permitted by the previous Government. In these regulations, we are tightening up the regime that we inherited. Fresh pasteurised cream—admittedly, this is a small amount—will not be included in these regulations. Secondly, I understand that it is not possible to produce frozen pasteurised milk. We are drawing the line on frozen goods on health grounds. Even if it were conceded that milk does not have to be frozen, this line will not slip because there are no adequate health safeguards for pasteurised fresh milk. That is why the regulations will not lead to a change in this area. I believe that we were correct in drawing the line there.
A number of hon. Members have asked about the heating of milk to 140 deg C and have said the Milk Marketing Board has pressed this regulation on us. In our discussions with the Board, we discussed UHT cream and milk-based products, not UHT milk, and I believe that that is an important point.
Understandably, many of my hon. Friends have raised the subject of botulism. The conditions for the manufacture of sterilised milk, UHT cream and milk-based products are safe from botulism. I understand that UHT milk is not a substance that supports botulism, but two other aspects are important in this context. Heating milk to a temperature of 132 deg C has been applied in this country for many years, and there have been no outbreaks of botulism for 20 years. The Minister has said that we shall have a review of the 140 deg C stipulation, and this aspect will be covered in the review.
Certain parts of the industry are unhappy about the imposition of a temperature of 140 deg C because of the burdens that would be imposed upon them. We have often talked about not imposing additional burdens unless we are sure that they are correct. We must have full discussions with the dairy industry before we move to imposition of 140 deg C. There are still disagreements in our domestic dairy industry.
Foot and mouth disease has been referred to by my hon. Friends the Members for Torridge and Devon, West and for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro).
We are assured by the Animal Virus Research Institute at Pirbright, from which we receive expert advice, that heat treatment of 80 deg C for 15 seconds makes pasteurised cream safe from foot and mouth disease. That makes imported pasteurised cream safe because it will have to undergo that heat treatment before it is frozen. There is the safeguard.
With UHT cream and milk-based products, on animal health grounds the advice of my veterinary staff and Pirbright is that the regulations provide an adequate safeguard against foot and mouth disease. We are assured of adequate safeguards there.
There have been only two outbreaks of foot and mouth disease during the past two years in two parts of the Community. If there were an outbreak of the disease we should take the same action as for any other food product. That is partly an answer to the Liberal spokesman.
We have a double system of checking at the ports. We have certificates which will cover the processing and bottling conditions and also the sampling and testing arrangements. Our staff will visit other member states to study those arrangements to provide a double check. If we discover through the sampling and testing arrangements that there has been reckless certification, we will apply more rigorous and regular testing of the products from that area. We will send back the product and make representations to the Government of the member state. 
Those are significant safeguards.
It is important to stress that in the note it sent to all Members of Parliament the National Farmers Union made a particular point of saying that
we would seek specific assurances that the procedures themselves will be robustly and fully applied, and that the necessary resources in personnel and equipment will be supplied and maintained, to ensure this.
That point was important to the National Farmers Union, and I can give those assurances tonight.
One or two hon. Members urged that we should have fewer ports for entry of these products. I cannot resist saying that the Poitiers argument does not stand up, because although that arrangement applied to a non- member state, it was able to last for only a few months. We are seeking to provide lasting arrangements to reassure our industry. If we had reduced entry to one or two ports it would have been open to immediate challenge on the ground that we were not doing that not for health but for economic reasons. That is precisely what the Opposition accepted we should not do.
My final theme is doorstep deliveries and the effects on producers and dairies. I am bound to say that the predictions of the hon. Members for Bassetlaw (Mr.Ashton) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) were hysterical and extremely unhelpful to their industries and members.
An analogy has been drawn with the Netherlands. I shall make a number of points on that. It is more interesting to have an analogy from Scotland, which is closer to home. Doorstep deliveries have decreased there in the past 12 years from 74 to 50 per cent. but the consumption of milk per head compared to 1970 has risen slightly. That is a sign that the consumer approves of fresh, pasteurised milk. Provided we maintain our support we shall continue to have that level of consumption.
It is important to recognise that we have a number of plants producing our own UHT and sterilised products. My right hon. Friend pointed out that sterilising takes place

under a wide range of conditions. Our domestic milk production has a less strict heat treatment requirement because deliveries can be more immediate than products from abroad. The important point is that a significant proportion of our sterilised milk production have the less strict heat treatment applied. If an equivalent restriction were applied to our exports by other member states the likelihood is that only a small proportion of our products would be exported. If the position were reversed, the indication is that the threat would be nowhere near as great as the Opposition have suggested.
I wish to pay a tribute to everyone involved in doorstep deliveries. Hon. Members have suggested, correctly, that other market forces are a far greater threat to doorstep deliveries than UHT. I recognise the concern that has been expressed about doorstep deliveries. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture faced a difficult decision. I believe that doorstep deliveries, when supported by the consumer, will remain a valuable part of the British social system.
The Government are drawing a line which is defensible, which must stick and which must give proper protection to legitimate British production interests and to the British consumer.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 212, Noes 323.

Division No. 70]
[11.30 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Alton, David
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Anderson, Donald
Deakins, Eric


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dewar, Donald


Ashdown, Paddy
Dixon, Donald


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dobson, Frank


Ashton, Joe
Dormand, Jack


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Douglas, Dick


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dubs, Alfred


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Barron, Kevin
Eadie, Alex


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Eastham, Ken


Beggs, Roy
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n SE)


Beith, A. J.
Ellis, Raymond


Bell, Stuart
Evans, Ioan (Cynon Valley)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Ewing, Harry


Bidwell, Sydney
Fatchett, Derek


Blair, Anthony
Faulds, Andrew


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Fisher, Mark


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Flannery, Martin


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Forrester, John


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Bruce, Malcolm
Foster, Derek


Caborn, Richard
Foulkes, George


Campbell, Ian
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Canavan, Dennis
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Freud, Clement


Cartwright, John
Garrett, W. E.


Clay, Robert
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Golding, John


Cohen, Harry
Gould, Bryan


Coleman, Donald
Gourlay, Harry


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Conlan, Bernard
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Hardy, Peter


Corbett, Robin
Harman, Ms Harriet


Corbyn, Jeremy
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Craigen, J. M.
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Crowther, Stan
Hawksley, Warren


Cunningham, Dr John
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Dalyell, Tam
Heffer, Eric S.






Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Pendry, Tom


Home Robertson, John
Penhaligon, David


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Pike, Peter


Howells, Geraint
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Hoyle, Douglas
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Prescott, John


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Radice, Giles


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Randall, Stuart


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Redmond, M.


Janner, Hon Greville
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


John, Brynmor
Richardson, Ms Jo


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Kennedy, Charles
Robertson, George


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Kirkwood, Archibald
Rooker, J. W.


Leadbitter, Ted
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Leighton, Ronald
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Rowlands, Ted


Litherland, Robert
Ryman, John


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sedgemore, Brian


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Sheerman, Barry


Loyden, Edward
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


McCartney, Hugh
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McCusker, Harold
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Short, Mrs B.(W'hampt'n NE)


McGuire, Michael
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Skinner, Dennis


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Maclennan, Robert
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


McNamara, Kevin
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


McTaggart, Robert
Snape, Peter


McWilliam, John
Spearing, Nigel


Madden, Max
Steel, Rt Hon David


Maginnis, Ken
Stott, Roger


Marek, Dr John
Strang, Gavin


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Straw, Jack


Martin, Michael
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Maxton, John
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Meacher, Michael
Tinn, James


Meadowcroft, Michael
Torney, Tom


Michie, William
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Mikardo, Ian
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wallace, James


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Wareing, Robert


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Welsh, Michael


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
White, James


Nellist, David
Wigley, Dafydd


Nicholson, J.
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Winnick, David


O'Brien, William
Winterton, Mrs Ann


O'Neill, Martin
Winterton, Nicholas


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Woodall, Alec


Paisley, Rev Ian
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Park, George



Parry, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Patchett, Terry
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. Harry Cohen




NOES


Adley, Robert
Batiste, Spencer


Alexander, Richard
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bellingham, Henry


Amess, David
Bendall, Vivian


Ancram, Michael
Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)


Arnold, Tom
Benyon, William


Ashby, David
Berry, Sir Anthony


Aspinwall, Jack
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Body, Richard


Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Bottomley, Peter


Baldry, Anthony
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)





Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gummer, John Selwyn


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hannam, John


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Browne, John
Haselhurst, Alan


Bruinvels, Peter
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hayes, J.


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hayhoe, Barney


Buck, Sir Antony
Hayward, Robert


Budgen, Nick
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bulmer, Esmond
Heddle, John


Burt, Alistair
Henderson, Barry


Butcher, John
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Butler, Hon Adam
Hickmet, Richard


Butterfill, John
Hicks, Robert


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hind, Kenneth


Carttiss, Michael
Hirst, Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Chapman, Sydney
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Chope, Christopher
Holt, Richard


Churchill, W. S.
Hooson, Tom


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hordern, Peter


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howard, Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Cockeram, Eric
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Colvin, Michael
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Conway, Derek
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Coombs, Simon
Hunter, Andrew


Cope, John
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cormack, Patrick
Irving, Charles


Corrie, John
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Couchman, James
Jessel, Toby


Crouch, David
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Dicks, T.
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Key, Robert


Dover, Denshore
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dunn, Robert
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Durant, Tony
Knowles, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Knox, David


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lamont, Norman


Eggar, Tim
Lang, Ian


Evennett, David
Latham, Michael


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lawler, Geoffrey


Favell, Anthony
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lee, John (Pendle)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fletcher, Alexander
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Forman, Nigel
Lightbown, David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lilley, Peter


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Fox, Marcus
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Franks, Cecil
Lord, Michael


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Luce, Richard


Freeman, Roger
Lyell, Nicholas


Fry, Peter
McCrindle, Robert


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
MacGregor, John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Maclean, David John.


Goodlad, Alastair
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Gorst, John
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Gow, Ian
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Grant, Sir Anthony
Madel, David


Gregory, Conal
Major, John


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Malins, Humfrey


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Malone, Gerald


Grist, Ian
Maples, John


Ground, Patrick
Marland, Paul


Grylls, Michael
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)






Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Mellor, David
Shersby, Michael


Merchant, Piers
Silvester, Fred


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sims, Roger


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Miscampbell, Norman
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Speed, Keith


Moate, Roger
Speller, Tony


Monro, Sir Hector
Spence, John


Montgomery, Fergus
Spencer, D.


Moore, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Squire, Robin


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Stanley, Jonn


Moynihan, Hon C.
Steen, Anthony


Mudd, David
Stern, Michael


Murphy, Christopher
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Neale, Gerrard
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Needham, Richard
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Nelson, Anthony
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Neubert, Michael
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Newton, Tony
Stokes, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Stradling Thomas, J.


Norris, Steven
Sumberg, David


Onslow, Cranley
Tapsell, Peter


Oppenheim, Philip
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Ottaway, Richard
Temple-Morris, Peter


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Terlezki, Stefan


Parris, Matthew
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Patten, John (Oxford)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Pattie, Geoffrey
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Pawsey, James
Thornton, Malcolm


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thurnham, Peter


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Pink, R. Bonner
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Pollock, Alexander
Tracey, Richard


Porter, Barry
Trippier, David


Powell, William (Corby)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Powley, John
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Viggers, Peter


Price, Sir David
Waddington, David


Prior, Rt Hon James
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Waldegrave, Hon William


Raffan, Keith
Walden, George


Rathbone, Tim
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Waller, Gary


Renton, Tim
Walters, Dennis


Rhodes James, Robert
Ward, John


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Warren, Kenneth


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Watts, John


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Whitfield, John


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Whitney, Raymond


Rost, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Rowe, Andrew
Wolfson, Mark


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Wood, Timothy


Ryder, Richard
Woodcock, Michael


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Yeo, Tim


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Young, Sir George (Acton)


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Younger, Rt Hon George


Sayeed, Jonathan



Scott, Nicholas
Tellers for the Noes:


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Mr. Carol Mather and


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Shelton, William (Streatham)

Question accordingly negatived.

MILK (NORTHERN IRELAND)

Motion made, and Question put pursuant to the Order [11 November],
That, in the opinion of this House, the Importation of Milk Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1983 (S.R.(N.I.), 1983, No. 338) ought to be revoked.—[Mr. William Ross.]

The House divided: Ayes 208, Noes 321.

Division No. 71]
[11.39 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Alton, David
Golding, John


Anderson, Donald
Gould, Bryan


Ashdown, Paddy
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Ashton, Joe
Hardy, Peter


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Barron, Kevin
Hawksley, Warren


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Heffer, Eric S.


Beggs, Roy
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Beith, A. J.
Home Robertson, John


Bell, Stuart
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Howells, Geraint


Bermingham, Gerald
Hoyle, Douglas


Bidwell, Sydney
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Blair, Anthony
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Janner, Hon Greville


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
John, Brynmor


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Kennedy, Charles


Bruce, Malcolm
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Caborn, Richard
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Campbell, Ian
Kirkwood, Archibald


Canavan, Dennis
Leadbitter, Ted


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Leighton, Ronald


Cartwright, John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Clay, Robert
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Litherland, Robert


Cohen, Harry
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Coleman, Donald
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Loyden, Edward


Conlan, Bernard
McCartney, Hugh


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
McCusker, Harold


Corbett, Robin
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Corbyn, Jeremy
McGuire, Michael


Cowans, Harry
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Craigen, J. M,
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Crowther, Stan
Maclennan, Robert


Cunningham, Dr John
McNamara, Kevin


Dalyell, Tam
McTaggart, Robert


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
McWilliam, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Madden, Max


Deakins, Eric
Maginnis, Ken


Dewar, Donald
Marek, Dr John


Dixon, Donald
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dobson, Frank
Martin, Michael


Dormand, Jack
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Douglas, Dick
Maxton, John


Dubs, Alfred
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Meacher, Michael


Eadie, Alex
Meadowcroft, Michael


Eastham, Ken
Michie, William


Ellis, Raymond
Mikardo, Ian


Evans, Ioan (Cynon Valley)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Ewing, Harry
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Fatchett, Derek
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Faulds, Andrew
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Nellist, David


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Nicholson, J.


Fisher, Mark
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Flannery, Martin
O'Brien, William


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
O'Neill, Martin


Forrester, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Foster, Derek
Park, George


Foulkes, George
Parry, Robert


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Patchett, Terry


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Pavitt, Laurie


Freud, Clement
Pendry, Tom


Garrett, W. E.
Penhaligon, David






Pike, Peter
Snape, Peter


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Spearing, Nigel


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Prescott, John
Stott, Roger


Radice, Giles
Strang, Gavin


Randall, Stuart
Straw, Jack


Redmond, M.
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Richardson, Ms Jo
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Tinn, James


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Torney, Tom


Robertson, George
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Robinson, P. (Belfast E)
Wallace, James


Rooker, J. W.
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Wareing, Robert


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Welsh, Michael


Rowlands, Ted
White, James


Ryman, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Sedgemore, Brian
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Sheerman, Barry
Winnick, David


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Woodall, Alec


Short, Mrs R.(W'hampfn NE)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Silkin, Rt Hon J.



Skinner, Dennis
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)
Mr. William Ross.


Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Alexander, Richard
Carttiss, Michael


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Amess, David
Chapman, Sydney


Ancram, Michael
Chope, Christopher


Arnold, Tom
Churchill, W. S.


Ashby, David
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Aspinwall, Jack
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Clegg, Sir Walter


Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)
Cockeram, Eric


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Colvin, Michael


Baldry, Anthony
Conway, Derek


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Coombs, Simon


Batiste, Spencer
Cope, John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Cormack, Patrick


Bellingham, Henry
Corrie, John


Bendall, Vivian
Couchman, James


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Crouch, David


Benyon, William
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Berry, Sir Anthony
Dickens, Geoffrey


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dicks, T.


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Dorrell, Stephen


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Body, Richard
Dover, Denshore


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Bottomley, Peter
Dunn, Robert


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Durant, Tony


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dykes, Hugh


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Eggar, Tim


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Evennett, David


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Brooke, Hon Peter
Favell, Anthony


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Browne, John
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Bruinvels, Peter
Fletcher, Alexander


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fookes, Miss Janet


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Forman, Nigel


Buck, Sir Antony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Budgen, Nick
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bulmer, Esmond
Fox, Marcus


Burt, Alistair
Franks, Cecil


Butcher, John
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Butler, Hon Adam
Freeman, Roger


Butterfill, John
Fry, Peter


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)





Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Maclean, David John.


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Goodlad, Alastair
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Gorst, John
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Gow, Ian
Madel, David


Grant, Sir Anthony
Major, John


Gregory, Conal
Malins, Humfrey


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Malone, Gerald


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Maples, John


Ground, Patrick
Marland, Paul


Grylls, Michael
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Mates, Michael


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mellor, David


Hampson, Dr Keith
Merchant, Piers


Hannam, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Haselhurst, Alan
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Hayes, J.
Miscampbell, Norman


Hayhoe, Barney
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Hayward, Robert
Moate, Roger


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Monro, Sir Hector


Heddle, John
Moore, John


Henderson, Barry
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hickmet, Richard
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hicks, Robert
Moynihan, Hon C.


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Mudd, David


Hind, Kenneth
Murphy, Christopher


Hirst, Michael
Neale, Gerrard


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Needham, Richard


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Nelson, Anthony


Holt, Richard
Neubert, Michael


Hooson, Tom
Newton, Tony


Hordern, Peter
Nicholls, Patrick


Howard, Michael
Norris, Steven


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Onslow, Cranley


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Oppenheim, Philip


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Ottaway, Richard


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Parris, Matthew


Hunter, Andrew
Patten, John (Oxford)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Pattie, Geoffrey


Irving, Charles
Pawsey, James


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Jessel, Toby
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Pink, R. Bonner


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Pollock, Alexander


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Porter, Barry


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Powley, John


Key, Robert
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Price, Sir David


King, Rt Hon Tom
Prior, Rt Hon James


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Raffan, Keith


Knowles, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Knox, David
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Lamont, Norman
Renton, Tim


Lang, Ian
Rhodes James, Robert


Latham, Michael
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lawler, Geoffrey
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Rost, Peter


Lightbown, David
Rowe, Andrew


Lilley, Peter
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Ryder, Richard


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lord, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Luce, Richard
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Lyell, Nicholas
Sayeed, Jonathan


McCrindle, Robert
Scott, Nicholas


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


MacGregor, John
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')






Shelton, William (Streatham)
Thornton, Malcolm


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Thurnham, Peter


Shersby, Michael
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Silvester, Fred
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Sims, Roger
Tracey, Richard


Skeet, T. H. H.
Trippier, David


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Viggers, Peter


Speed, Keith
Waddington, David


Speller, Tony
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Spence, John
Waldegrave, Hon William


Spencer, D.
Walden, George


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Squire, Robin
Waller, Gary


Stanbrook, Ivor
Walters, Dennis


Stanley, John
Ward, John


Steen, Anthony
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Stern, Michael
Warren, Kenneth


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Watts, John


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Whitfield, John


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Whitney, Raymond


Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Wilkinson, John


Stokes, John
Wolfson, Mark


Stradling Thomas, J.
Wood, Timothy


Sumberg, David
Woodcock, Michael


Tapsell, Peter
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Younger, Rt Hon George


Temple-Morris, Peter



Terlezki, Stefan
Tellers for the Noes:


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. Carol Mather and


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Question accordingly negatived.

Pharmacists (Discount Arrangements)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am advised that this subject is entirely competent to be raised as court proceedings were dropped yesterday morning.
The background is that retail pharmacists are provided with their medicines from pharmaceutical wholesalers. These medicines are issued on prescription, and later the prescription forms are sent to the Government pricing bureau where the value of the substances and the fees of the chemists are worked out. The sums are then paid to the chemists through the local health boards.
I understand that retail pharmacists in Scotland are under contract to local health boards and must be paid a sum that covers not only the purchase price of the medicines but the overhead costs and an agreed profit for each prescription.
After the abolition of resale price maintenance, discount competition began in a big way among the wholesalers, who tried to attract a greater share of the market. At the time, payments were made to the chemist at the manufacturer's list prices, and the Government noted that they were losing considerable sums previously paid to the Exchequer. They devised a scale of discount recoveries which were brought into operation so that sums paid to pharmacists to reimburse the ingredients were discounted by a percentage that bore some relationship to the value of the ingredients. The amount of discount for each chemist was roughly equivalent to the discount which he or she could obtain from the wholesalers.
Recently, I paid a courtesy call to the shops in my constituency, and the chemists forcibly impressed on me their indignation at the method used to recover the discount. After I made inquiries with the Pharmaceutical General Council, it emerged that the period of most concern is from 1 October 1980 to 31 July 1983.
This year, the Home and Health Department is asking for £2·5 million to be recovered by a surcharge. The remainder—about £4·7 million—is to be recovered by a reduced rate of surcharge over a longer period of 19 months from 1 January next year. Apparently the Scottish Home and Health Department is making no exception for pharmacies which opened after 1 August 1983, nor for new businesses which started during the period concerned, nor for businesses which changed hands during that period.
It has been suggested that it would be difficult and complex to ascertain which shops have been established, which were closed, which changed hands and which were taken over, and how much, if anything, would be payable in each case. Much of the work has already been done by the Pharmaceutical General Council, which has ascertained which shops were taken over, which changed names, which were established from scratch, which formed new partnerships, and so on.
The ground which has been given by the Minister's office for rejecting the pharmacists' case is given in a letter of 7 October:
This kind of situation has arisen in the past and is usually considered to be part of a swings and roundabouts situation where


new pharmacists have sometimes benefited, and sometimes lost, from adjustments to remuneration resulting from past outcomes and future predictions.
The case of the Pharmaceutical General Council should be taken more seriously. It is that a scheme should be devised to recover funds from those in business at the time and those who could have been expected to earn discounts. It hopes that this will be considered more carefully.
It may be correct that in the past some pharmacists have benefited or lost from adjustments in remuneration, but the case I put to the Minister and before the House is that there has never been such a massive adjustment as that suggested now. What makes the pharmacists feel particularly strongly about it is that the Department is trying to recover more than half the £4·7 million over five months during this year. On a previous occasion some three to four years ago when overpayments were made, measures were taken to reduce the level of the dispensing fee and on-cost payments so that the debt could be written off over two years. At that time it was soon realised that this was leading to an underpayment, so a supplementary adjustment was made after nine months.
In this case it would be fair for the Department to endeavour to recover funds only from pharmacists who were in business at the time. If the Government were to waive the debt for new pharmacists it would be unacceptable to the general council if such a debt were to be transferred to the general body of pharmacists.
As I mentioned earlier, there has been much discussion about the complexity of working out what the debt would be in each case. The Pharmaceutical General Council deserves to be congratulated on the work it has already done in completing an analysis of the changes which have occurred in ownership since 1 October 1980. The council has modern equipment with new computers and it would be possible to assess the individual debt for each chemist's shop in Scotland and itemise it on a month-to-month basis. This would be warmly welcomed by the chemists.
I should like to give two examples in which the Department has already found the resources and the will to deal with chemists individually when it suited its purpose. First, there was a case involving the chemists who supply oxygen gas and equipment. Some 250 of the 1,100 chemists' shops in Scotland supply oxygen gas. Retrospective payments involved a repricing of all oxygen prescriptions for 250 shops.
Of more importance was the second case; a massive amount of work was undertaken when there were allegations that Roche was making excess profits. So the company reduced its prices and the Department had to examine more than 8 million Scottish prescriptions for the period covering June, July and August 1973 to reprice Roche products. Individual accounts showing overpayment were made for each contractor. There can be no doubt that the Scottish Office coped with the examination of millions of prescriptions. It was a herculean task. Surely such an examination in the case before the House tonight would be far less herculean.
The crux of the matter is that the Pharmaceutical General Council estimates that the proportion of the £4·7 million debt that the Minister has been invited to write off in Scotland is about £450,000. If the Minister accedes to that request, new pharmacists opening after 31 July 1983 would be exempt from the surcharge, and those opening

or having changed hands between 1 October 1980 and 31 July 1983 would be responsible only for a debt in proportion to the length of time that they had been in business.
I appeal to the Minister to reconsider the matter, on the basis of common sense and equity, while bearing in mind that the Government believe strongly in supporting small new businesses. Surely if and when such measures must be put into effect they should be carried out with scrupulous fairness.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. I must protect the Adjournment debate of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton). Do the hon. Members rising have the permission of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West and the Minister to intervene?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: They do, Sir.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) for allowing me to take part in the debate.
The measures proposed by the Minister raise serious questions of morality and fairness. They also pose a threat to chemists in rural areas. There is considerable concern that the clawback scheme has been introduced in Scotland without any inquiry into the levels of discounts being secured by chemists. Almost by the very nature of their business in Scotland, discounts are bound to be lower than in England. The businesses are, on the whole, small and deal with more sparsely distributed populations. The Pharmaceutical General Council in Scotland has estimated that the discounts are 0·6 per cent. less than in England. That alone would reduce the amount of claw back from the proposed £4·7 million to nearer £3 million.
Another worrying aspect of the scheme is the haste with which £2·5 million has been taken out of chemists' income in five nonths. That can have only a serious, if not disastrous, effect on the cash flow of many small businesses. The problem is compounded because their income is calculated on the value of the prescriptions with which they deal, which will consequently be reduced.
However, the most serious aspect is the unacceptable imposition of clawback on people who did not benefit from overpayment in the first place. In the past, where the reverse position has applied, every effort has been made by the Department to ensure that the repayments went to those who had been underpaid. Nothing was paid to newcomers then.
The impact on rural areas can only be severe. Villages are heavily dependent on local shops, and the chemist is a critical linchpin in local communities, especially with rural transport in decline. The very businesses that will be most vulnerable will be those with low turnovers and the least choice of wholesalers. Despite the sliding scale that has rightly been implemented, they will have to repay discounts that they have never received. I regret that the whole sorry scheme has the hallmark of something which, while it is perhaps just in its aspirations, pays little regard to the difficulties that it places on small businesses.
I am grateful for the opportunity to ask the Minister to think again, to establish a clawback after a proper attempt


to ascertain the real levels of discount that area being achieved in Scotland, and to reconsider the speed of implementation of the scheme and the speed with which the money is withdrawn. I ask him to throw out the proposals to penalise those who have started new businesses or have bought existing ones, and have never benefited. I understand that we are talking about 208 businesses in Scotland. It is not enough to argue that identifying those firms is complicated, so it cannot be done. After all, presumably, if the Pharmaceutical General Council can do it, so can the Scottish Office.

Mr. Michael Hirst: I have been prompted to make a short contribution to the debate by representations that I have received from eight constituents who feel aggrieved by the arrangements that the Scottish Home and Health Department has made to claw back discounts.
I support the Government entirely in their determination to make sure that the money spent on the Health Service is spent in the wisest way and to maximum advantage. I agree that the overpayment to the pharmacists should be recovered, but if they were underpaid I should make vigorous representations on their behalf.
I have three points to make. First, the level of the clawback will be based on the volume of prescriptions now being done. My constituents have represented to me that that adversely affects pharmacists whose businesses are expanding. I recognise that, to operate a slightly more fair system, one would need an elaborate bureaucracy. Therefore, that point must pass, although I am happy to make it.
Secondly, the level of clawback, at 7 per cent., is, in the view of at least three of my constituents, more than was received. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could give me an assurance on that point. The matter that I find more difficult to overlook is the disadvantaged position of the pharmacists who have started up in business since October 1980 and have not traded either in or throughout the period from October 1980 to July 1983. I understand that the discount clawback is for a 34-month period.
If the Minister accepts the merit of fairness in this case, in order to avoid an elaborate bureaucratic system of making detailed calculations he should merely provide an abatement in direct proportion to the number of months that that pharmacist has not traded during the relevant period. The corollary of that is a small loss to the Scottish Home and Health Department in respect of pharmacists who have gone out of business or sold up during the period, but overall I think that we are talking about a fairly modest sum.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) for giving me the opportunity to deal with the subject of discounts on drugs.
The detailed arrangements for chemists' remuneration are complex, some would say too complex, but the basic concept is simple. Chemists have contracts with health boards to provide pharmaceutical services, and the aim of the contract is to reimburse to chemists their costs in providing the service and to provide an agreed level of

profit. The matters raised by my hon. Friend relate mainly to reimbursement of costs. That is the procedure to assess that the overall amount paid to chemists as a whole for drug costs is the same as the amount that they spent on buying the drugs.
Payment to chemists for reimbursement for drug costs is broadly based on manufacturers' list prices. However, chemists receive discounts, and it is those discounts that have caused the problems to which my hon. Friend directed our attention. This is not the first time that hon. Members have discussed this matter. The Public Accounts Committee looked at it in a report in May this year when it underlined the need to ensure that the system does not pay out more public money than it should.
Formal negotiations on chemists' remuneration are conducted on a Whitley basis under committee B of the Pharmaceutical Whitley Council. In recent years, most negotiations have been conducted on a more informal basis between the Pharmaceutical General Council (Scotland), representing the staff side, and officials of my Department.
In Scotland, the contractual arrangements for chemists provide for the payment of dispensing fees per prescription dispensed, presently 46p, and on-cost payments, paid as a percentage of the value of the drugs supplied, which together reflect both the costs incurred by chemists in providing the service, including labour costs for staff and overheads for costs for premises, and a negotiated allowance for profit margin. In addition to the above elements of remuneration, chemists are reimbursed the costs of drugs dispensed and the prescription pricing division of the Common Services Agency prices individual prescriptions accordingly. As part of these procedures, adjustments have had to be made, mainly to take account of discounts which have enabled chemists in general to purchase drugs at costs lower than the manufacturers' list prices.
It has always been regarded as impracticable to identify individually contractors' entitlement to remuneration. Details are obtained from periodic surveys of a representative sample of chemists shops of the average costs incurred by chemists in providing the NHS dispensing service and for the years between surveys the costs are updated in accordance with agreed conventions.
Chemists are also entitled to a negotiated level of profit, and since 1981 this has consisted of two elements: an interest cost element representing the amounts of interest the chemist is deemed to have incurred in funding his business; and a pure profit element. For each financial year a balance sheet is prepared that brings out on one side chemists' overall entitlement to remuneration, comprising labour costs, overhead costs and profit margins. The other side of the annual balance sheet brings out the actual payments made globally to all chemists, mainly dispensing fees and on-cost payments.
Because of the need to estimate likely volumes of prescriptions and costs of drugs to be dispensed, it is not practicable to keep the entitlement and payments sides of the remuneration balance sheet in line because of the complexity of the calculations. Inevitably underpayments or overpayments are identified, and appropriate adjustments are taken into account in the balance sheet assessments for later years.
As regards reimbursement of drug costs, the items dispensed on each prescription form are priced by the prescription pricing division generally in relation to drug


manufacturers' price lists or drug tariffs specified for certain commonly prescribed standard drugs. If the gross ingredient cost figure for the month exceeds £2,000, the chemist becomes liable to adjustment on account of discounts by applying the graduated discount scale which is referred to in paragraph 5 of the drug tariff 1981 and the net result is that a modified sum, the net ingredient cost, is arrived at for reimbursement to the chemist.
Discounts from wholesalers on the price of drugs in some form have existed for many years, with some minor recognition of the fact in the reimbursement arrangements, but the abolition of resale price maintenance as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West said, led to an upward surge in 1978–79. When the independent Franks panel made its recommendations in England and Wales it recognised that there were uncovenanted profits elsewhere in the overall remuneration arrangements and that the position on escalation of discounts required to be considered.
As a result, during negotiations with the Scottish chemists' representatives on a revised approach to profit margins from 1 July 1980, it was agreed that revised discount arrangements also required to be applied from that date, and chemists knew about that. As regards the period from 1 October 1980, interim arrangements were agreed by the parties, with the details being subject to review in due course in the light of statistical survey work which it was recognised would be required in England and Wales and in Scotland. Subsequently, a revised interim discount scale averaging some 4·8 per cent. was applied as part of the prescription pricing procedures from 1 July 1981. Both parties to the negotiations recognised that there had been insufficient allowance for discounts in earlier periods from 1 October 1980 and made what was then considered appropriate provision as part of the overall remuneration arrangements. The actual rates to different contractors depend on the band size into which contractors fall, on the basis that the larger the chemist the bigger the discounts.
Following the Franks panel negotiations in 1980 and 1981, it was hoped that the discounts inquiry to take place in England and Wales could provide a sufficiently realistic interim assessment of the likely level of discounts in Scotland, thereby limiting the scope of the additional survey work necessary in Scotland, and so it was agreed that the figures of discount arrived at in England and Wales should be used in Scotland until the Scottish position could be considered. The English inquiry has taken a long time.
As I mentioned, the Public Accounts Committee looked at the whole question earlier this year. In its 10th report to the House, ordered to be printed on 27 April 1983, the PAC made certain observations in paragraphs 34 and 35 and while I will not quote the whole text, I draw the attention of hon. Members to some of the comments. The PAC said in paragraph 34:
We must express great concern that chemists in England and Wales should have been so slow to co-operate in an enquiry which has the straightforward objective of ensuring that—to be fair both to them and the taxpayer—they are reimbursed no more than the actual cost of the drugs they dispense …We look for the early recovery of any over-reimbursement since 1 October 1980.
In paragraph 35 the committee said:
We note the long-held right of Scottish chemists to negotiate their remuneration separately with the Scottish Home and Health

Department …Should the present rates be shown to have been too low, it may mean that over-reimbursements have been accumulating for perhaps three years. While we expect the Scottish Home and Health Department to act on such of those points we make above as are relevant to Scotland, we look to them in particular to secure the prompt recovery of any sums shown to be due from chemists.

Mr. Churchill: rose——

Mr. MacKay: I must get on.
The English discount inquiry eventually came up with some conclusions, though these are not yet final. It was therefore possible in August of this year for us to arrive at an average discount figure of 6·5 per cent., to be applied in the usual way to monthly ingredient cost figures. This yet again is an interim figure depending on what still emerges from the English inquiry and on what more we need to do in Scotland.
At the same time as the 6·5 per cent. was agreed, we had to face up to the question of the earlier interim discounts as requested by the Public Accounts Committee. We arrived at a provisional figure of £4·7 million in respect of the estimated value of discounts which had not been taken fully into account in the drug pricing and remuneration procedures in earlier years.
Negotiations on means to correct those earlier over-reimbursements of drug purchase costs took place. As a result, there was proposed an additional surcharge averaging 3·4 per cent. in respect of prescriptions for the months of August, September, October, November and December of this year. The remainder would be found by a modified surcharge, to be agreed in due course, for the following 19 months.

Mr. James Wallace: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. MacKay: I come to the problem of new chemists. They feel, as has been clearly represented, that it is unfair to expect them to pay back 3·4 per cent. for five months when they may not have been in business for the whole, or indeed any, of the period for which the discount has been calculated.
It might be argued that any person buying an existing chemist's business since 1980 would have taken into account the discount situation, which was well known. That argument could even apply to anyone setting up a new business. I appreciate that the chemists do not accept that argument and I have accepted their offer to provide information from their computer about the scale and nature of the problem of new chemists who have set up in business since 1980.
As hon. Members will know, the Pharmaceutical General Council (Scotland) applied to the Court of Session for an interim interdict in effect to stop the 3·4 per cent. surcharge, and in the light of that application I felt that the best course was to undertake not to apply the surcharge of 3·4 per cent. to the forthcoming payments in respect of the September and October prescriptions. The Council has dropped its application for an interim interdict and agrees that negotiations should again commence. The House will appreciate that I do not want to say anything now that will make the negotiations more difficult. I assure my hon. Friends that my officials will be approaching the negotiations constructively, and I am sure that the Pharmaceutical General Council will do likewise, to see if we can arrive at some agreed solution on how to pay the money back, as the Public Accounts Committee clearly


outlined we have a duty to do, to the House and the public, on whose behalf we spend the money. Equally, we must take into account that we are prepared to deal with this, and especially the problems of new premises during the negotiations. It would not serve much purpose to examine the forthcoming negotiations during this debate.
There are some possibilities of a new contract being considered by my colleagues in England and Wales. We would be interested in any developments. I am sure that the Scottish chemists will be looking to what is provided so that the present difficulties are solved to our general satisfaction. At present, we have complex arrangements which have worked quite well for many years. With good will, I believe that they can be made to work in the present difficulties. Anyone who has visited the prescription pricing division of the Common Services Agency and seen the mammoth task that goes on, month after month, to reimburse the chemists promptly will appreciate this difficult and complex operation.
If there are discount prices which differ from the manufacturers' list prices, we must try to be fair to the

chemists—that is reasonable—and to the taxpayer. I assure the House that willingness exists on my part and that of my officials to reach an agreed solution with the Pharmaceutical General Council. I am sure that the same willingness exists on the part of the Pharmaceutical General Council because it knows what the Public Accounts Committee has said and it does not want to be taking more from the taxpayer any more than I wish to be giving more to the chemists.
That is the difficult position in which we find ourselves. I am happy to give my hon. Friends the assurance that we shall enter these negotiations in the hope that we can find a reasonable solution which will clear up this matter and remove some of the ill-feelings that, I admit, I have detected in the correspondence that I have had with some of my hon. Friends, from their constituents and front some of my constituents.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Twelve o'clock.